73–922 PS

Calendar No. 91

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–41

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JULY 18, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. KOHL, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1191]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1191) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2002

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... $73,897,995,000

Amount of 2001 appropriations acts to date .......... 1 76,673,187,000

Amount of estimates, 2002 ...................................... 73,976,108,000

The bill as recommended to the Senate:

Under the appropriations provided in 2001 .... 2,775,192,000

Under the estimates for 2002 ........................... 78,113,000 1 Includes $3,643,949,000 in emergency appropriations.
(2)

CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Page

Overview and summary of the bill ......................................................................... 5

Government Performance and Results Act ............................................................ 5

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................. 7

Executive operations ............................................................................................... 9

Office of the Chief Information Officer .................................................................. 10

Common computing environment ........................................................................... 11

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ...................................................................... 12

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ........................................... 12

Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments .................................... 12

Hazardous waste management ............................................................................... 14

Departmental administration ................................................................................. 14

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ............................. 15

Office of Communications ....................................................................................... 16

Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................... 16

Office of the General Counsel ................................................................................. 17

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............ 17

Economic Research Service ..................................................................................... 18

National Agricultural Statistics Service ................................................................ 18

Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................ 19

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ......................... 41

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............ 53

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ........................................................ 54

Agricultural Marketing Service .............................................................................. 63

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ................................. 67

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ...................................................... 68

Food Safety and Inspection Service ....................................................................... 68

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services ....... 69

Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................... 71

Risk Management Agency ....................................................................................... 77

CORPORATIONS

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund ............................................................. 78

Commodity Credit Corporation fund ...................................................................... 79

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ............ 84

Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................................... 84

TITLE III—RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development ...................................................................................................................... 96

Rural Community Advancement Program ............................................................ 97

Rural Housing Service ............................................................................................. 102

Rural Business-Cooperative Service ...................................................................... 108
Page

3

Rural Utilities Service ............................................................................................. 111

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ...... 115

Food and Nutrition Service ..................................................................................... 116

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service ................................................................................... 130

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Food and Drug Administration ............................................................................... 138

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ............................................................. 147

Farm Credit Administration ................................................................................... 147

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions ................................................................................................... 149

Program, project, and activity ................................................................................ 150

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate .... 150

Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 151

Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 151

Budgetary impact of bill .......................................................................................... 153
(4)

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six titles

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

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations

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

2001 1 2002 Committee

recommendation

Title I: Agricultural programs ............................................................ $33,249,900,000 $31,855,922,000

Title II: Conservation programs ......................................................... 871,556,000 980,416,000

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs .... 2,475,739,000 2,793,742,000

Title IV: Domestic food programs ...................................................... 34,111,683,000 35,839,891,000

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ............................ 1,090,199,000 1,128,077,000

Title VI: Related agencies .................................................................. 1,165,304,000 1,287,351,000

Title VII: General provisions ............................................................... 29,945,000 12,596,000

Title VIII: ............................................................................................. ¥5,000 ..............................

Title X: Anti-dumping ......................................................................... 39,912 ..............................

Total, new budget (obligational) authority .......................... 73,029,238,000 73,899,995,000

1 Includes rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106–554 and excludes emergency appropriations.
(5)

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

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

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

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

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural

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

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

[CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].

Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, the

bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural and rural development programs and on other programs and

activities funded by the bill. It is within the subcommittee’s 302(b)

allocation.

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure

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

programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on each of the

accounts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications behind the funding levels are included in the report.

All discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2001 shown in

this report reflect the 0.22 percent rescission pursuant to Public

Law 106–554 and have been rounded to the nearest thousands of

dollars.

The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and

loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects the

Department only to approve those applications judged meritorious

when subjected to the established review process.

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

Public Law 103–62, the Government Performance and Results

Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop succinct

and precise strategic plans and annual performance plans that

focus on results of funding decisions made by the Congress. Rather

than simply providing details of activity levels, agencies will set

outcome goals based on program activities and establish performance measures for use in management and budgeting. In an era of

restricted and declining resources, it is paramount that agencies

focus on the difference they make in citizens’ lives.

The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends to

use the agencies’ plans for funding purposes. The Committee considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending while
6

achieving a more efficient and effective Government and will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this Committee.
(7)

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $2,908,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,992,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,992,000

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary,

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

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

President and Members of Congress on all matters pertaining to

agricultural policy.

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends an

appropriation of $2,992,000. This amount is $84,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

Environmentally preferable products.—The Secretary shall work

with the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other appropriate

agencies to maximize the purchases of environmentally preferable

products, as defined by Executive Order 13101 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention. Such products are not only

useful in improving the environment, but they can, when the product contains a substantial amount of agri-based content, also open

considerable markets for farmers.

The Department should actively participate in joint task forces

and other multiagency entities in this area. It should actively work

to properly define standards for agri-based content of products and

work towards the development of such environmentally preferable

products.

Use of the Commodity Credit Corporation.—During fiscal year

2001, funds were made available through the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) for a number of programs initiated by either the

current or previous administration. These programs ranged from

control of certain exotic pests to an international school lunch pilot

program. The Committee understands the need for the Department
8

to utilize CCC funds to meet unanticipated needs, if authorized,

and generally supports the actions taken in this regard over the

past year. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee makes specific

recommendations for initiatives the Secretary should continue and,

in certain cases, work with the appropriate authorization committees to establish the programs by law. In regard to programs which

may be initiated during fiscal year 2002 the Committee reminds

the Secretary of the requirements of section 720 of this Act on the

establishment of new programs under the Commodity Credit Charter Act or other authorities.

Human capital management.—On January 17, 2001, the General

Accounting Office issued a report on human capital challenges and

their effect on an agency’s ability best to perform its mission in an

effective, efficient, and economic manner. That report included references to activities within the Department of Agriculture. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary to continue comprehensive workforce planning and to assist agency implementation of incentive and training activities that are best suited to the

end result of improved effectiveness within Government and enhanced services to the public.

Drought mitigation.—The Committee is concerned by the lack of

a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought

strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and personal

hardships to large sections of the nation. Current conditions in the

Pacific Northwest, as one example, have resulted in water supplies

for agriculture falling to within only 20 to 30 percent of normal

supply. The report of the National Drought Commission, ‘‘Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century’’, recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness Act. Such an act

would establish a Federal/non-Federal partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for implementing a national

drought policy. The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out

the recommendations of the National Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide a response to droughtstricken areas in as prompt and meaningful a way as possible.

Food security.—The Committee remains concerned by reports of

increased demand for hunger relief programs at the community

level and the ability of the Department to meet the nutrition needs

of all Americans. The Committee encourages the Secretary to coordinate the work of the Research, Education, and Economics mission area with that of the Domestic Food and Nutrition Programs

to better understand and provide adequate response to this growing need. The Committee suggests that guidelines for USDA grant

programs that focus on nutrition should reflect the need to address

systemic failures and critical gaps in the food delivery system. The

Committee also urges the Secretary, as part of this effort, to

strengthen community food security and increase support for local

sales by agricultural producers to consumers and school food service authorities.

National Animal Disease Center.—The Committee provides funding elsewhere in this bill for the National Animal Disease Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for activities consistent with the most efficient

plan as identified by the Secretary. The Committee agrees with the

Secretary in a statement communicated to the Committee on May
9

25, 2001, that there is an urgent need to renovate and modernize

the existing facilities and, further, that these grossly debilitated

and inadequate facilities, as part of a high national priority for animal health programs, must be modernized. The Committee is concerned by reports of unsafe conditions which currently pose threats

to USDA personnel and others and therefore directs the Secretary

to take corrective actions regarding immediate facility needs, as determined by the Secretary.

Nutrition studies and evaluations.—In developing plans for using

funds appropriated for studies and evaluations of nutrition assistance programs, the Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition

Service to inform the Economic Research Service of its priorities for

projects to support program objectives. The Committee also expects

the Secretary to review the allocation for all studies and evaluations resources to avoid duplication and assure that high priority

needs are met.

Administrative convergence.—The Secretary is expected to seek

the Committee’s approval before implementing a merger or reduction of any administrative or information technology functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, USDA Rural Development, or any other agency of the Department.

Tahoe site restoration.—The Committee is aware of the Secretary’s authority under the Public Law 106–506 to provide assistance to South Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency to develop and publish a plan for the cleanup of

hydrocarbon contamination (including MTBE). The Secretary is

urged to make such authorized assistance available within existing

funds to these agencies.

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

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

policy officials and selected Departmentwide services. Activities

under the executive operations include the Office of the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office of Budget and

Program Analysis.

CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $7,446,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,648,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,648,000

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 issues, 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.
10

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee recommends $7,648,000. This amount is $202,000 more than the 2001

appropriation and the same as the budget request.

The Committee encourages the Department to conduct a study to

determine the economic feasibility of a small-scale dry mill ethanol

production facility in New Jersey.

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $12,394,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 12,766,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,766,000

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends

$12,766,000. This amount is $372,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $6,750,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,978,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,978,000

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction

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

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

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program

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

and interested public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative programs and reports.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee recommends $6,978,000. This amount is $228,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $10,029,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,261,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,261,000

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in

August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major
11

Federal agencies. This office provides 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. In addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer

is responsible for certain activities financed under the Department’s working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated data processing [ADP]

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

MO. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office

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

Chief Financial Officer, and executive operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $10,261,000 for the Office of the

Chief Information Officer. This amount is $232,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $39,912,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 59,369,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,369,000

1 Excludes $19,457,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–387.

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. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $59,369,000 for the Common Computing Environment. This is $19,457,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

Within this amount, $4,500,000 is provided for data storage infrastructure hardware and software with heterogeneous

connectivity to all existing USDA information systems and applications, and which enables remote mirroring for disaster recovery,

and for coordination with the Combined Administrative Management System (CAMS).
12

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $5,160,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,335,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,335,000

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 is also responsible for the management and operation of

the National Finance Center. In addition, the Office 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee recommends $5,335,000. This amount is $175,000 more than the 2001

appropriation and the same as the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $628,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 647,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 647,000

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, personnel management, equal opportunity

and civil rights programs, ethics, and other general administrative

functions. In addition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for certain activities financed under the

Department’s working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the

Committee recommends $647,000. This amount is $19,000 more

than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $182,345,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 187,581,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 187,581,000

Rental payments.—Annual appropriations are made to finance

the appropriated portion of the payments to the General Services

Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for related services to

all USDA agencies, except the Forest Service, which is funded by

another appropriations bill.

The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to agencies occupying GSA-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

feel are incorrect.
13

Building operations and maintenance.—On October 1, 1984, the

General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the operations

and maintenance function 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. GSA expanded the delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms in Lanham, MD, and the other is

a leased warehouse for the excess property operation located at 49

L Street SW, Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major

nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations

and maintenance 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, DC, and in leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, 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, DC. To implement

this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation 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 Agriculture South Building.

During fiscal year 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. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations at the

Beltsville Office Facility.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities and

payments for the rental of space and related services, the Committee recommends $187,581,000. This amount is $5,236,000 more

than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 2001

and budget request levels:

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 estimate 2002 budget

request

Committee recommendation

Rental Payments ................................................... 125,266 130,266 130,266

Building Operations ............................................... 31,136 31,372 31,372

Strategic Space Plan ............................................. 25,943 25,943 25,943

Total .............................................................. 182,345 187,581 187,581
14

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $15,665,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 15,665,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,665,000

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

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

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

under the Department’s jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $15,665,000 for hazardous materials

management. This amount is the same as the 2001 appropriation

and the budget request.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $35,931,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 37,079,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,079,000

1 Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–387.

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

coordination of administrative functions of the Department. These

activities include departmentwide programs for human resource

management, management improvement, occupational safety and

health management, real and personal property management, procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft management,

supply management, civil rights and equal opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the Department’s program activities, emergency preparedness, small and disadvantaged business

utilization, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial

Officer. Departmental Administration also provides administrative

support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable activity.

Departmental administration is also responsible for representing

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

addition, departmental administration engages in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-wide compliance

with applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and general officers of the Department.
15

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $37,079,000. This amount is $1,148,000 more

than the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget

request.

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $2,993,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,993,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,493,000

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 on 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 postsecondary education facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of $3,493,000. This amount is

$500,000 more than the 2001 level and the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $3,560,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,684,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,684,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

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

in the development and implementation of policies and procedures

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,684,000.

This amount is $124,000 more than the 2001 level and the same

as the budget request.

The Committee provides that not less than $2,283,000 may be

transferred to agencies funded by this Act to support congressional

relations’ activities at the agency level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the allocation of these funds

by USDA agency, along with an explanation for the agency-byagency distribution of the funds.
16

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $8,604,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 8,894,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,894,000

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $8,894,000. This amount is $290,000 more than

the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $68,715,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 70,839,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,839,000

The Office of the Inspector General was established October 12,

1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act expanded and

provided specific authorities for the activities of the Office of Inspector General which had previously been carried out under the

general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports

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

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

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance

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

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred.

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $70,839,000. This is $2,124,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
17

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $31,012,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 32,627,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,627,000

1 Excludes $498,900 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–554.

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 performs all of the legal work arising

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

law and in quasi-judicial hearings held in connection with the administration of various programs and acts. The office also 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,627,000. This amount is

$1,615,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the

budget request.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $555,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 573,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 573,000

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$573,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the 2001 level and the

same as the budget request.

The Committee directs the Secretary to review existing and ongoing public and private research related to the induced molting of

laying hens, and carry out or support such further research as may

be appropriate, and report back to the Committee by April 30,

2002. The research should advance understanding of effective dietary alternatives to feed and water withdrawal in connection with

induced molting. The research should also provide further knowledge about any increased pathogen shed that may be associated

with induced molting and potential risk to human health, on the
18

basis of actual field research over one or more complete flock life

cycles.

Nutrition monitoring activities are vital to shaping policies for

food safety, child nutrition, food assistance, and dietary guidance.

While the Committee supports the process underway to integrate

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services and

the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by USDA, it is concerned that USDA has failed to continue

to conduct the CSFII in 2000 and 2001 as the integration process

continues. The Committee directs USDA to conduct the CSFII to

ensure that the quality of dietary data collected is not diminished,

and survey methods capture statistically valid intakes of various

population groups, especially at-risk groups.

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $66,891,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 67,200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,200,000

1 Includes $998,000 transfer to ‘‘Food and Nutrition Service, Food Program Administration’’ for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public Law 106–387.

The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and

other social science information and analysis for public and private

decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and on rural

America. The information ERS produces is for use by the general

public and to help the executive and legislative branches develop,

administer, and evaluate agricultural and rural policies and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $67,200,000. This amount is $309,000 more

than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.

The amount recommended also includes $9,168,000 for USDA

food assistance program studies and evaluations.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $100,550,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 113,786,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 113,786,000

The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] administers

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

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

of the agricultural sector which are essential for making effective

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support

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

training to developing countries.

The Service is also responsible for administration of the Census

of Agriculture, which was transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1997 to con-
19

solidate agricultural statistics programs. The census of agriculture

is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number of farms, land

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

buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market

value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation practices. The

1997 Census of Agriculture was released on February 1, 1999. The

next agricultural census will be conducted beginning in January

2003 for the calendar year 2002.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $113,786,000. This amount is

$13,236,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the

budget request.

The Committee’s recommendation includes the $25,350,000 requested in the budget for the Census of Agriculture, $10,383,000

more than the 2001 appropriation.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $896,835,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 915,591,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,004,738,000

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

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

ARS is also responsible for the National Agricultural Library

which provides agricultural information and library services

through traditional library functions and modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and private organizations, and individuals.

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

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

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

support for international programs, and scientific resources to the

executive branch and Congress.

The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and

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

mission focuses on the development of technical information and

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

and use the Nation’s soil, water, air, and climate resources, and im-
20

prove the Nation’s environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of

agricultural products by observing practices that will maintain a

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee recommends $1,004,738,000. This is $107,903,000

more than the 2001 level and $89,147,000 more than the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $180,000 of the savings

from project terminations proposed in the budget. These savings

are to be redirected to those research areas for which increased

funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee does not

provide funding for contingencies.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends funding increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research activities.

The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year 2001

level is to be applied to mandatory pay and related cost increases

to prevent the further erosion of the agency’s capacity to maintain

a viable research program at all research locations.

The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the

prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the

purposes identified by Congress.

In complying with the Committee’s directives, ARS is expected

not to redirect support for programs from one State to another

without prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise directed,

the Agricultural Research Service shall implement appropriations

by programs, projects, commodities, and activities as specified by

the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified reductions necessary

to carry out the provisions of this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the definitions contained in the ‘‘Program, project,

and activity’’ section of this report.

The Committee’s recommendations with respect to specific areas

of research are as follows:

Aerial application research.—The Committee is aware of the significant and necessary role aerial application provides to our nation’s farmers and the importance of increasing aerial application

environmental safety. Aerial application is a necessary crop protection tool in modern farming. Aerial application permits large areas

to be covered rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective applications of large farming areas. The Committee notes the important

research being conducted at the ARS laboratory in College Station,

TX, which led to modifications of application systems to meet safety and technology challenges in aerial application. The Committee

provides an increase of $600,000 over the fiscal year 2001 funding

level for expanded ARS aerial application research at the College

Station, TX, research station.

Animal waste treatment research.—The Committee is aware of

the priority need for research to develop new treatments for animal
21

waste. In this regard, the agency’s Florence, SC, research laboratory has been making great strides to allow the advancement of alternative technologies to address swine waste which could eventually eliminate waste lagoons. The Committee provides an increase

of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for these investigations at the Florence, SC, research station.

Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC).—As a component of

the National Agricultural Library (NAL) integrated information

services, AWIC provides information about animal welfare to researchers and others responsible for the care and treatment of laboratory animals, as mandated under the 1985 Animal Welfare Act.

The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 to support increased activities of AWIC in fiscal year 2002.

Animal Vaccines.—USDA estimates that the annual monetary

loss from cattle and swine intestinal diseases is around

$500,000,000 in the United States alone. New technologies are

critically needed to mitigate the adverse impacts of intestinal diseases on cattle, poultry and swine, and to avoid potential economic

disasters, such as the spread of foot and mouth disease in Europe.

The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year

2002 for this joint research project between ARS and the Universities of Connecticut and Missouri aimed at developing and refining

new methods for applied vaccine delivery, early disease detection,

and developing more effective vaccines.

Appalachian Fruit Research Station.—The Committee provides

an increase of $220,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level in program

funding to support molecular biology and engineering research at

the Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV.

In addition, the Committee is aware of certain facility needs at

the Kearneysville location and the agency is instructed to address

the more immediate requirements in fiscal year 2002 and provide

a report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by January 1, 2002, identifying long-term facility improvement

needs.

Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems Project.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to continue the research consortium supporting the Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef

Systems project. Through a cooperative agreement, consortium

members, consisting of West Virginia University, Virginia Tech,

and ARS, will be able to provide critical resources to Appalachian

cattle farmers to ensure the future economic viability of these producers, to enhance development in Appalachia, and to protect the

environment.

Apple research.—The Committee expects ARS to increase funds

available for research on alternatives to pesticides and improving

postharvest technologies for apples.

Aquaculture research.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture at various locations throughout the

country. In order to ensure that duplication does not occur in the

field of warmwater aquaculture research, the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel catfish research related to production systems, nutrition, water quality, genetics, disease diag-
22

nosis, or food processing which is ongoing at the National

Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center at Stoneville, MS.

The Committee encourages all facilities to share research results

to benefit and enhance the Nation’s aquaculture industry.

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center (ACNC).—The Arkansas

Children’s Nutrition Center is part of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute and is one of six USDA–ARS Human Nutrition Centers. The ACNC conducts research on diet and dietary

factors that optimize the nutrition and health of children from conception through adolescence, and maximize their health as adults,

especially in later life. Controlled human studies assessing metabolic, endocrinologic, and immunologic functions are used to develop dietary strategies. ACNC has achieved some very promising

research breakthroughs. Scientists at the Center recently patented

research that found whey and soy proteins helped prevent breast

cancer, a major cause of death among women. ACNC is working aggressively with the soybean, rice, and wheat industries to enhance

research efforts in this program. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the level available in fiscal year 2001 for

expanded research on nutrition and health at the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, located in Little Rock, AR.

Asian bird influenza.—The Committee remains concerned about

the recent outbreak of a lethal strain of avian influenza in Southeast Asia. Under encouragement from the Committee, ARS scientists at Athens, GA, provide technical assistance and collaborate

with other leading virologists and ornithologists to develop and assess baseline data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and

their migration habits between Southeast Asia and North America

and their breeding grounds in Alaska. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for ARS to collaborate with the

University of Alaska and the University of Georgia to develop further and assess these baseline data, specifically through increasing

the number and diversity of wild bird samples obtained and analyzed.

Avian Pneumovirus.—The Committee notes the losses to turkey

producers due to the spread of avian pneumovirus and continues

funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for research related to this disease.

Barley food health benefits research.—The Committee supports

the expansion of research on the health effects of barley food products. Efforts have been initiated to create an FDA-approved label

defining foods that contain barley as low-cholesterol. As part of

those studies, human nutrition clinical trials must be conducted.

The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for this research.

Barley stripe rust.—The Committee recognizes the important research conducted at the Pullman, WA, ARS unit on barley stripe

rust. Barley stripe rust is a major threat to the Pacific Northwest

barley production. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001

funding level for research on barley stripe rust.

Binational Agriculture Research and Development (BARD).—

BARD is a binational fund to promote and support agricultural research and development projects of mutual benefit to the United
23

States and Israel. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000

for fiscal year 2002 for this joint research program.

Bioenergy and biofuels research.—The Committee recognizes that

in addition to enhanced energy security, development of biobased

products and bioenergy represent an additional source of demand

for agricultural products. The Committee provides increased funding of $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for biofuels and bioenergy research to be carried out at Peoria, IL; Wyndmoor, PA; Albany, CA;

Lincoln, NE, St. Paul, MN; and Madison, WI. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 to evaluate and develop

plant species and management practices adaptable to buffer strips

and CRP lands for sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct crop production systems at El Reno, OK; Tifton, GA; Mandan, ND; University Park, PA; and Corvallis, OR.

Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.—There is a

need to develop a bioinformatics infrastructure that facilitates

transfer of genomics information on structural and functional

genomics from model plants to crop species. By leveraging

genomics information in model plants such as ‘‘arabidopsis

thaliana’’, it will be possible to focus and improve the efficiency of

genomics research on crop species. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for fiscal year 2002 for ARS, in collaboration

with New Mexico State University and the National Center for Genome Resources, to establish a Bioinformatics Institute for Model

Plant Species. This research will complement but not duplicate the

cooperative program currently carried out at the ARS Center for

Bioinformatics and the Cornell University Theory Center. The Institute will expand and link existing genomic and genome database

research from ARS and the collaborating partners into an inter-institutional platform for deploying genomic data from model plants

to discover, characterize, and manipulate agronomically important

genes of major crops, including soybeans, alfalfa, maize, and cotton.

Biomass crop production.—The Committee provides an increase

of $900,000 over the amount requested for fiscal year 2002 for expanded research on biobased products and bioenergy to initiate a

cooperative project with South Dakota State University on biomass

co-product research. This project will investigate the applicability

of using a method of fiber extrusion from ethanol production into

high value feed for cattle and conversion to increased ethanol production.

Biotechnology approaches to risk assessment.—The Committee

understands the need to provide science-based data on the longterm ecological impacts of genetically-modified pest-protected

plants. Biotech approaches that prevent pollen or seedling viability,

establishment of buffer zones, management practices or other new

technologies should be employed to mitigate risk. Research is necessary to develop data that will provide a basis for regulation of genetically engineered crops, especially those incorporating pest and

herbicide resistance. The Committee provides an increase of

$3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. Funding in the amount of $600,000

is to be implemented at each of the following ARS locations: West

Lafayette, IN; Ithaca, NY; Madison, WI; Beltsville, MD; and Albany, CA.
24

Biomedical materials in plants.—The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2001 level of funding for ARS cooperative research with

the Biotechnology Foundation, Inc., to carry out studies on tobacco

and other plants as a medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for the prevention of human and animal diseases.

Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.—The

Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation’s research on

both plants and animals at an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level.

Bovine genetics research.—As dairy farmers continue to face low

farm milk prices, efforts to improve efficiency and maintain low

costs of production become increasingly important. One way to

achieve this efficiency is to milk cows with superior genetics. The

Animal Improvement Program Laboratory (AIPL) conducts research to discover, test, and implement improved genetic evaluation techniques for economically important traits of dairy cattle.

Approximately 38,000 dairy farmers throughout the United States

participate in the data collection program that AIPL uses to accumulate the data needed for its evaluations. These evaluations are

then shared with farmers and breeders who benefit from the information. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from fiscal year 2001 levels to enhance bovine genetics research at the

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

Broiler production in the mid-south.—Reduced broiler production

costs are essential for the industry to increase net profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee provides an increase of $900,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the

ARS Poultry Research Unit in Mississippi to address critical research areas. These include reducing ammonia levels in poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing mortality in

broiler flocks.

Catfish health.—Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and parasites

threaten the nation’s catfish industry. Research is urgently needed

to identify disease vectors, modes of transmission, life cycles and

methods for controlling these diseases. The Committee provides an

increase of $2,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for a comprehensive catfish health research program to be conducted at the

National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. The Center already has

a critical mass of scientists and the physical capabilities to rapidly

address the disease issue. Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded to select for fish with disease and parasite resistance. The increased funding will provide the additional scientists required, including parasitologists, virologists, fish pathologists, and disease epidemiologists.

Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.—The Committee is aware of the significance of the research currently underway relating to catfish and other food products at the Mississippi

Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology and continues

funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for research on shellfish safety

and methods of decreasing risks to consumers.

Cereal crops research.—The Committee provides an additional

$900,000 from the level available in fiscal year 2001 for the ARS

Northern Crops Research Laboratory at Fargo, ND for expanded
25

research on small grains and sunflowers. The Committee continues

to be concerned with the economic viability of the small grains and

sunflower industries as a result of production and marketing problems faced by producers in recent years. In addition, the Committee provides $250,000 for the cereal crops research unit at

Madison, WI.

Club wheat breeding.—The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for the ARS Pacific Northwest Club

Wheat Breeding Program. This program is essential as growers

seek to gain additional overseas markets.

Corn germplasm.—Contamination of corn by aflatoxin limits corn

production in the southern United States. Understanding the corn

genome and where the genes for resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant breeding process leading to resistant

lines. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for ARS in Stoneville, MS, to undertake

research on the development of corn plants resistant to aflatoxin.

Cotton genomics, breeding, and variety development.—Accelerating the release of higher yielding cotton varieties with improved fiber quality and pest resistance is imperative for maintaining the economic viability of the U.S. cotton industry. To become

more competitive, U.S. cotton mills have turned to ever-faster spinning and weaving machinery, requiring higher quality cotton fibers

than are currently being produced. Improved cotton varieties by

the private sector have placed primary emphasis on value added

traits, but they have not resulted in a net increase in fiber yield

nor improved fiber quality. While cotton germplasm is available for

improving yield and quality, efforts must be accelerated to incorporate this genetic material into agronomically-acceptable varieties

and to transfer into cotton lines resistance to nematodes and other

pests. An increase of $1,000,000 is provided from the fiscal year

2001 level to incorporate an independent public cotton breeding

program into the cotton genomics and breeding program conducted

by ARS at the Stoneville, MS, Federal-State Research and Extension Complex. This research effort will accelerate releases of cotton

germplasm and varieties with improved yield, fiber quality, and

reniform nematode resistance.

Cotton ginning laboratories.—The Committee continues funding

at the fiscal year 2001 levels for ginning research at the Stoneville,

MS; Mesilla Park, NM; and Lubbock, TX, laboratories.

Cotton value-added/quality research.—U.S. agriculture’s continued economic strength depends on efficient production and valueadded technology. The Committee urges ARS to continue to place

high priority on cotton textile processing research conducted at

New Orleans, LA, to improve quality, reduce defects, and improve

easy-care products. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal

year 2001 level for this research.

Crop production and food processing.—The Committee supports

the existing collaborative effort between Purdue University and the

Agricultural Research Service on a genomic project to identify critical steps in the development of resistance to important pests of

wheat. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal

year 2002 for a cooperative agreement with Purdue University to

expand this project into improvements of the functional properties
26

of soybeans, as well as wheat, in conjunction with the University

of Illinois and ARS’ National Center for Agricultural Utilization

Research, Peoria, IL.

Dairy forage research.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the U.S. Dairy Forage Research

Center, Madison, WI. Of this increase $500,000 is directed for integrated farming systems research, and $250,000 is directed to support Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Trial System activities. Also,

within this increase, $500,000 is provided for ARS to conduct seasonal grazing research at the Dairy Forage Research Center.

Disease resistance and alternative crops research.—The Committee acknowledges the need for additional research on disease resistance and alternative crops for coffee and cocoa. The Agricultural Research Service has a productive program in place that has

already resulted in the formation of a unique public/private partnership with the American Cocoa Research Institute (ACRI) and

individual companies within the U.S. confectionery industry. This

new scientific and technical alliance has allowed USDA to share

findings from private-sector supported programs, as well as to develop educational and technical farm level projects utilizing industry expertise. The ‘‘Disease Resistance/Alternative Crop Research’’ cocoa research program has equally important implications for realizing foreign policy goals in Central and South America as well as

economic benefits for West Africa. As a globally marketable cash

crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally beneficial

choice for small farmers and may provide an incentive to farmers

to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide stable long-term

economic benefits. The cocoa research initiative will focus on identifying genetic markers for disease resistance, improving traditional

breeding techniques, disease mitigation, technology transfer, as

well as farmer training programs. Various aspects of this research

can be applied to domestic crops such as potatoes, soybeans, cotton,

and corn. The Committee provides an increase of $1,850,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this important research. Of this increase,

$150,000 is for a cooperative program administered in Wisconsin.

Emerging and exotic diseases.—The Committee notes the increasing threat posed by emerging and exotic diseases to livestock and

crops throughout the United States. It is extremely important to

identify new pathogens, their geographic origin, and to biologically

characterize them. The Committee provides an increase of

$6,782,000 for fiscal year 2002. The research will be conducted at

ARS animal facilities; the plant research will be carried out at Ft.

Detrick, MD; Charleston, SC; Fargo, ND; College Station, TX; and

Raleigh, NC.

Fish diseases.—The Committee recognizes the need for the development of safe and effective vaccines for the prevention of diseases

in catfish to increase productivity, fish efficiency, and reproduction.

Vaccinations, successful in other animals, appear to be the best

means of preventing diseases. The Committee provides an increase

of $500,000 from fiscal year 2001 level for the development of vaccines to prevent fish diseases at the ARS Auburn, AL, research laboratory.

Floriculture and nursery research.—The Committee provides increased funding of $800,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for the
27

ARS floriculture (environmental horticulture) and nursery research

program. Nursery and greenhouse products rank third in the Nation. As the public demands more plants and trees to help clean

the air, prevent water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water

quality and conservation, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and significant environmental research role.

Formosan Termite Control.—The Committee provides $6,000,000

to continue the ongoing Formosan termite eradication and research

program, ‘‘Operation Full Stop,’’ at the Southern Regional Research

Center.

Fruit fly.—The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for the University of Hawaii College of Tropical

Agriculture and Human Resources for collaborative work on developing efficacious and nontoxic methods to control tephritid fruit

flies and to continue expansion efforts addressing multiple pests

and treatments. For continuing the work on the impact of quarantine and control techniques on non-target organisms and the environment, the Committee recommends the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2001.

In addition, the Committee continues ARS funding at the fiscal

year 2001 level to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine control of the

papaya ringspot virus and to expand the techniques and knowledge

obtained from this program to other papaya diseases and pests and

to other crops such as taro, ginger, and herbal plants. The Committee also continues ARS funding to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to coordinate a

program to induce nematode resistance, flowering control, and

mealy bug wilt disease resistance in commercial pineapple

cultivars and to apply the tools and knowledge developed to other

tropical plants of economic importance in Hawaii.

Fruit research.—The Committee is aware of the important work

carried out on fruit research at Wenatchee and Yakima in the

State of Washington. The Committee expects the Department to

continue to give increased attention to the work carried out at

these two facilities.

Genomics research.—The Committee is aware of the need to develop more rapid and efficient methods to identify and manipulate

useful properties of genes and genome. Genomics and biotechnology

are critical to maximize crop production while minimizing environmental degradation. The Committee provides an increase of

$4,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this research to be carried out

at Beltsville, MD; Clay Center, NE; Ithaca, NY; and Stoneville, MS.

Grain legume plant pathologist position research.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of a grain legume plant pathologist position at Washington State University in Pullman, WA,

and continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level to support this

position. This position is required for research on grain legumes

and foliar diseases of dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas.

Grape research.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of

a horticulturist position specializing in grape production at the

ARS station in Prosser, WA. The Committee recognizes that the research horticulturist is an important link to the research efforts

conducted at the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research at
28

the ARS Corvallis, OR, station. Recognizing the importance of this

position and the effect research has had on grape production in

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal year 2001 level.

Harbor Branch aquaculture research.—Competition for access to

the limited U.S. coastal land resources requires innovative approaches to develop and expand marine aquaculture into new environments. The objective is to design a cost-effective and energy efficient solar aquaculture system capable of sustained production of

warm water species throughout the year in colder climates. The

Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for

collaborative research between ARS and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute for research on low-cost energy efficient marine

aquaculture systems in new environments.

Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.—The Committee understands that Arkansas leads the nation in raising hybrid striped bass and grass/Chinese carp. It produces 80 percent of

the nation’s baitfish and is the second leading producer of catfish.

The Aquaculture Center plays a significant role in supporting those

efforts. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 from the

fiscal year 2001 level for an additional scientist to strengthen this

research program.

Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.—The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane

producers and to continue to support the expansion of new crops

and products, including those from agroforestry, to complement

sugarcane production in Hawaii.

Hides and leather research.—The Eastern Regional Research

Center in Wyndmoor, PA, is the only USDA facility conducting research on hides and leather. The Committee recognizes the importance of the Center’s ongoing research to develop new methods of

tanning cattle hides produced in the country. The research provides

the hides and leather industry with a cost-effective and environmentally safe tanning process which will enhance U.S. producers’

comptitiveness in world markets. The Committee continues funding

at the fiscal year 2001 level to support this important research.

Hops.—The Committee recognizes the difficulties in the production of the U.S. hops industry with new and emerging diseases, and

encourages continued support and research enhancement by ARS.

Improved forage livestock production.—The Committee recognizes

the limited research currently available on the science and utilization of grasslands and its potential for significantly improved forage-livestock production systems. The Committee provides an increase of $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2002 to ARS for a cooperative

project with the University of Kentucky on tall fescue breeding and

improvement efforts to develop an enhanced national forage base.

IR–4 Minor Crop Pesticide Registration Program.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the IR–4 project, which produces research data for clearances for pest control products on

minor food and ornamental crops. The Committee notes that this

project is especially critical at this time in order to meet the new

requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act, and to fully im-
29

plement its reduced risk pest management strategy for minor

crops.

Irrigated cropping systems in the mid-south.—Irrigation in the

mid-south United States is essential for economically sustainable

crop production systems. The Committee provides an increase of

$400,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for research on irrigation,

to be conducted by ARS, Stoneville, MS, focusing on such issues as

feedback to correct water amounts, reducing plant stress, and ameliorating the field environment.

Late blight fungus.—The late blight fungus is quickly developing

into the most serious threat to potato production in the United

States. New chemical-resistant strains of late blight have been detected in virtually every major potato growing State. Late blight

has resulted in millions of dollars in crop losses in Maine and

throughout the potato producing States in the Eastern United

States. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal

year 2002 for expanded ARS research on potato late blight.

Livestock genome mapping initiative.—The U.S. agricultural system now faces formidable challenges, such as water and soil degradation, new pests and pathogens, and inaccessibility of genetic

resources resulting in increased genetic vulnerability of livestock.

Genomics and biotechnology are critical for improving the efficiency

of production, and the quality and safety of food products from animals, improving the accuracy of genetic selections, identifying and

moving genes into livestock populations, and identifying genes responsible for disease and parasitic resistance in animals. The Committee supports this initiative to create an ordered map of large insert DNA clones covering the entire DNA in major species of food

animals. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal

year 2002 for ARS support of the initiative in conjunction with the

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-associated

virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF), infecting small

ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of

funding 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, in cooperation with the ARS

sheep station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State University.

Medicinal Botanical Production and Processing.—The Committee

provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for

USDA’s ARS Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center in

Beaver, WV, to research, develop, and implement new and improved techniques for the cultivation and production of herbal crops

as medicinal botanicals. This research is to be conducted in collaboration with the College of West Virginia/Mountain State University.

Methyl bromide.—The Committee supports funding to continue

research related to a replacement for methyl bromide. The Committee expects the ARS to hold administrative overhead costs to a

minimum, to direct a significant portion of these funds to field testing, and to direct technology transfer to land grant institutions involved in research projects under this program.
30

Microbial genomics.—The Committee recognizes the importance

and significance of research to obtain the complete genetic code for

Anaplasma marginale and other microbial pathogens, and provides an increase of $900,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for a joint

microbial genomics initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at

Kerrville, TX. Of the amount provided, $600,000 is to be allocated

to the Animal Disease Research Unit at Pullman, WA, of which

$100,000 is for a cooperative agreement with Washington State

University, and $300,000 is to go to the Tick Research Unit at

Kerrville, TX. Emerging and food-borne diseases create significant

food safety and trade problems and further genomics research is

needed to develop new control methods.

Minor crop pests.—The Committee provides continued funding at

the fiscal year 2001 level for the University of Hawaii College of

Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to develop environmentally compatible methods to control pests and diseases in

small-scale tropical and subtropical agricultural systems.

National Center for Agriculture Law.—The Agricultural Law

Center at Fayetteville, AR, provides nationally important research

and information on agricultural issues. The Agricultural Research

Service’s National Agricultural Library has had a cooperative program with the Center for the past decade. The Committee provides

an increase of $125,000 for fiscal year 2002 in support of this program. Of the funding available for this program, $100,000 is available for agricultural law research at Drake University.

National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.—The

Committee increases funding for the National Center for Cool and

Cold Water Aquaculture by $1,200,000 from the fiscal year 2001

level to allow the Center to make reasonable progress toward becoming fully operational and making a beneficial contribution to

the success of aquaculture in America.

In addition to this increase, the Committee provides an increase

of $725,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to develop and test improved rainbow trout strains and alternative grain-based fish feeds

through the ARS National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown, WV, in cooperation with the University of Idaho

Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in Hagerman, ID.

The Committee also provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal

year 2002 to the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture for the Improvement in Aquaculture Systems Environmental Compatibility and Economic Efficiency project. The project

will enhance the production efficiency and minimize the environmental impact of aquaculture production systems. The research

will be conducted through a consortium, consisting of the Center

and the Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute.

National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS).—The USDA oversees

the NPGS which assures the acquisition and preservation of plant

germplasm. Genetic resources are critical to the nation’s agriculture and provide the basis for the development of crop varieties

necessary to meet the changing circumstances and needs of the future. The Committee recognizes the importance of this research

and provides an increase of $5,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001

level.
31

National sclerotinia initiative.—The Committee is aware of the

significant crop losses incurred by producers because of reduced

yields and crop quality caused by sclerotinia. The Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the

sclerotinia initiative for expanded research to control this devastating disease which seriously affects broadleaf plants, including

canola, sunflowers, soybeans, edible beans, and lentils. This program will be coordinated from the ARS research station at Fargo,

ND.

National Sedimentation Laboratory.—The Committee continues

funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for the National Sedimentation

Laboratory, including funding for studies on the use of acoustics to

characterize soils, determine moisture content, and monitor crop

growth. The Laboratory is expected to continue its close relationship with the National Center for Physical Acoustics in carrying

out these research efforts.

The Committee also provides an additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to the National Sedimentation Laboratory to

conduct research on sources and causes of water impairment in the

Yazoo River Basin and to seek economically feasible ‘‘Best Management Practices’’ for attaining new water quality goals, commonly

referenced as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s), at field, farm,

watershed, and basin levels.

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory.—The drought of 2000 re- sulted in $329,000,000 in losses to Alabama’s row crop producers who typically contribute more than $700,000,000 to the State’s

economy. In order for row crop producers to remain competitive,

ways to reduce drought-related risks must be addressed to increase

production and producer’s profitability. The Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Soil Dynamics Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for increased studies in soil hydrology, weed ecology, and soil physics.

National Soil Erosion Laboratory.—The Committee provides an

increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

the ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN, for

support of the Source Water Protection Initiative, a watershed

project affecting three States. The goals of the project are to accelerate the adoption of pest management practices in the watershed,

the effects of pesticide loading, and water quality. The ARS station

will be responsible for the design of the watershed scale monitoring

and evaluation program, determining sampling intervals, and analyzing collected data.

Natural products.—The Committee provides an increase of

$750,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for the ARS to continue

its cooperative agreement with the National Center for Natural

Products Research in support of research on natural products.

New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.—ARS’ New

England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory at Orono, ME, conducts

research to evaluate the impact of new cropping systems and management practices on plant pathogens, nutrient dynamics, soil

properties, yield, and profitability. Research is also conducted to

optimize the recycling of manure-derived nutrients while minimizing adverse environmental consequences of manure applications

to cropland. The Committee supports this important research and
32

provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a soil physicist position at the ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.

New uses of agricultural commodities.—The Committee recognizes the need for expanded research efforts to accelerate the development of biobased industries that use trees, crops, agriculture,

forest and aquatic resources to make commercial products. Development of biobased products represents an additional source of demand for agricultural products. The Committee provides an increase of $4,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level to develop

biobased materials from agricultural commodities and byproducts

using biotechnology tools and other integrated technologies. These

programs will be carried out as follows: Peoria, IL, $1,500,000;

Wyndmoor, PA, $1,250,000; and New Orleans, LA, $1,250,000.

Northern Grain Insect Laboratory.—The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the Northern Grain Insect Laboratory at Brookings, SD, for support of a cropping system

ecologist. This ARS laboratory conducts research to develop sustainable production systems that enhance environmental quality

and provide health, safety, and profitability for agricultural producers in the Great Plains.

Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory.—This ARS research

station conducts economically sustainable and environmentally

sound integrated crop and livestock management systems for agricultural producers in the Northern Great Plains. In this regard, the

station cooperates with the Hettinger Research and Extension Center in developing crop and livestock management systems that will

increase the value of crops and animals produced in the region. The

Committee provides total funding of $3,221,800 for Northern Great

Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, to support planned research in fiscal year 2002, including support for a professional position at the Hettinger Research and Extension Center.

Oat virus research.—The Committee recognizes the critical need

to control barley yellow dwarf virus and cereal yellow dwarf virus,

two viruses which are destructive pathogens of oats. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a

cooperative agreement with the University of Illinois to conduct important genetic research on these viruses to help prevent these diseases in major food crops.

Ornamental horticulture research.—Ornamental horticulture in

Tennessee and adjacent States faces challenges to its profitability.

These challenges include pests, pathogens, and weeds; lack of environmentally-friendly production practices; and the development of

improved or new varieties of ornamental crops. The Agricultural

Research Service in cooperation with the University of Tennessee

can revitalize research in ornamental horticulture, biocontrol,

germplasm and plant sciences in general to solve these problems

for this region of the country and improve the rural and suburban

economies. The Committee supports this initiative and provides an

increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this research.

Pear thrips.—The Committee recognizes the value of collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to develop controls for pear thrips and provides $150,000 for fiscal year 2002 to

continue this important research.
33

Pecan disease research.—The ARS Fruit and Nut Research Station at Byron, GA, has provided significant research findings for

the U.S. pecan industry. Additional funding is required to support

disease prevention and treatment. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 levels to support these

important research programs.

Phytoestrogens.—The Committee has provided the fiscal year

2001 level of funding for the Southern Regional Research Center to

continue cooperative studies of phytoestrogens in human health

and disease and their impact on human cells. Phytoestrogens are

natural constituents of the diet that have been shown or thought

to have beneficial health effects, such as breast cancer prevention

and cardiovascular fitness. Successful research will result in a significant health value being added to soy products, thus increasing

their value as an agricultural product.

Pierce’s disease.—Pierce’s disease and its vector, the glassywinged sharpshooter, continues to threaten the nation’s grape and

wine industries, as well as growers of other commodities. Because

of this threat, citrus and nursery stock growers are now faced with

costly requirements for inspection and treatment applications to

control the spread of Pierce’s disease and its vector, the glassywinged sharpshooter. The Committee provides an increase of

$3,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the ARS research center in

Parlier, CA, to facilitate urgently needed research, including field

trials of materials, biological control measures, and other approaches, such as lures and physical barriers, to the movement and

spread of the insect.

Plum Pox research.—The Committee recognizes that the discovery of plum pox in North America seriously threatens stone

fruit industry. The Committee maintains funding for fiscal year

2002 at the fiscal year 2001 level of $775,000 for plum pox research

at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, WV,

to build upon ongoing research at this research facility which has

produced a plum tree that has proven resistant to the plum pox

virus in field tests done in Poland, Romania, and Spain during the

last three growing seasons.

The Committee also maintains funding at the fiscal year 2001

level for ARS research conducted at Frederick, MD, to develop integrated disease control methods in collaboration with Pennsylvania

State University and Clemson University on plum pox virus.

Potato breeding research.—The USDA research laboratory at Aberdeen, ID, conducts an important and progressive potato breeding

program. Recent erosion in the laboratory’s funding and lack of scientific resources have limited ARS’ capacity to address important

aspects of variety development research. The Committee provides

an additional $150,000 from the fiscal year 2001 levels to address

this problem and to enhance the laboratory’s molecular biology programs.

Potato research.—The Committee acknowledges the importance

of potato research conducted at the Irrigated Agriculture Research

and Extension Center in Prosser, WA. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2001 funding level for potato research at the

Prosser, WA, station.
34

Program continuations.—The Committee directs the Agricultural

Research Service to continue to fund the following areas of research in fiscal year 2002 at the same funding level provided in fiscal year 2001: Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; Integrated Pest Management (IPM),

Fairbanks, AK; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Aflatoxin in Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Endophyte Research, Small Farms, Booneville,

AR; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, AR; Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Rice Research,

Stuttgart, AR; Ecology of Tamarix, Albany, CA; Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position, Davis, CA; Citrus & Horticultural Research, Fort Pierce, FL; Biological Controls and Agriculture Research, Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile Virus, Gainesville,

FL; Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL; Asian Bird Influenza,

Avian Pneumovirus, Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens,

GA; Nematology Research, Water Use Management Technology,

Tifton, GA; U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo,

HI; Risk Assessment for BT Corn, Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA;

Grain Research, Manhattan, KS; New England Plant, Soil, and

Water Research Laboratory, Orono, ME; Barley Food Health Benefits Research, Biomedical Materials in Plants, Poultry Disease,

Turfgrass Research, Beltsville, MD; Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin for

the Mid South, Waste Management Research, Mississippi State,

MS; National Sedimentation Laboratory (Acoustics and Yazoo

Basin), Oxford, MS; Natural Products, Oxford, MS; Small Fruits

Research, Poplarville, MS; Alternative Crops and Value-Added

Products, National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Red Imported

Fire Ants, Stoneville, MS; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS;

Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville, MS; Mid-West/MidSouth Irrigation, Columbia, MO; Soybean Genetics, Columbia, MO;

Watershed Research, Columbia, MO; Cotton Ginning Research, Las

Cruces, NM; Rangeland Resources Management, Las Cruces, NM;

Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Animal Vaccines, Greenport, NY;

Northern Crops Research, Fargo, ND; Western Grazinglands,

Burns, OR; Viticulture Research, Corvallis, OR; Conservation Research, Pendleton, OR; Pasture Systems & Watershed Management, University Park, PA; U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory, Lubbock, TX; Bee Research, Weslaco, TX, Logan

UT; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Grain Legume

Genetics Research, Pullman, WA; Malignant Catarrhal Fever

Virus, Pullman, WA; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley, Pullman,

WA; Temperate Fruit Flies, Yakima, WA; Appalachian PastureBased Beef Systems Project, Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for

Mid-Atlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Systems (Rainbow Trout), Leetown, WV; National Center for Cool and Cold

Water Aquaculture, Leetown, WV; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Integrated Farming Systems, Madison, WI; Floriculture &

Nursery Crops, ARS Headquarters, Washington, DC; Greenhouse

and Hydroponics Research, ARS Headquarters, Washington, DC;

National Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative, ARS Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Range and livestock research.—The Committee recognizes the important animal research conducted at the Ft. Keogh Range and

Livestock Research Station, Miles City, MT. The research benefits
35

ranchers and the cattle industry, and emphasizes ecologically and

economically sustainable range animal management systems that

meet consumer needs. The Committee provides an increase of

$600,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Ft. Keogh Range and

Livestock Research Laboratory for expanded research to address

rangeland animal production/environmental problems.

Red imported fire ants.—Infestations of red imported fire ants

are increasing in southern California, as well as in a number of

States in the Southeast and Southwest. Nationally, damages

caused by imported fire ants to agriculture, human health, infrastructure, farm animals and wildlife are estimated at several billion dollars each year. The Committee provides an increase of

$1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to expand research on effective control of imported fire ants infestations conducted at the

ARS Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center. This program is

conducted by ARS in cooperation with the National Center for

Physical Acoustics and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry

Experiment Station.

Research to control invasive weeds and arthropods.—Invasive

weeds and other pests species such as hydrilla, yellow starthistle,

leafy spurge, and arthropods such as silverleaf whitefly, Russian

Wheat aphid and many others cost the United States over

$100,000,000,000 annually. Like weeds, new arthropod pests appear in this country each year. The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 for this research initiative. These programs will be carried out as follows: Pathogens for

biological control—Stoneville, MS; Weslaco, TX; Yakima, WA; research systematics and development of new biological information—Beltsville, MD; Davis, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Montpellier, FR,

and Ft. Lauderdale, FL; integrated weed management systems— Urbana, IL; Ithaca, NY; and Cheyenne, WY.

Rice research.—The Committee recognizes the important research carried out at the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research

Center in support of the American rice industry. Arkansas alone

produces 45 percent of America’s rice and relies heavily on the research results emanating from the Center. The Committee provides

an increase of $130,000 for fiscal year 2002 to adequately support

ongoing research at the Center.

Root diseases of wheat and barley.—The Committee provides the

fiscal year 2001 funding level for the ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Research Unit located at Washington State University in Pullman, WA.

Seafood waste.—While seafood is attractive now as an alternate

food source, the disposal of seafood waste continues to be a national

and international problem. Discarded fish waste and its other uses

could potentially provide an additional source of revenue for seafood processors. The Committee provides an increase of $900,000

for fiscal year 2002 for ARS to develop a program with the University of Alaska on feedstuffs generated from materials usually wasted during processing of seafoods.

Shellfish genetics research.—The Committee understands that

the West Coast has become the largest regional producer of oysters

in the United States with an annual production of 92 million

pounds valued at $69,000,000. However, domestic production does
36

not meet national demands. The shellfish industry requires a longterm genetic improvement research program. Currently the industry cultivates ‘‘wild’’ shellfish that commonly result in poor crop

yields and high mortalities due to genetically inferior stocks. ARS

has established a national aquaculture program with the goal of facilitating the formation of a globally competitive and sustainable

aquaculture industry in the United States. However, these programs are mainly focused on freshwater fish. The Committee provides increased funding of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for ARS to

initiate a West Coast multi-state shellfish research program that

focuses on genetics, ecology and food quality. The genetics component of this program is to be located at the Hatfield Marine Science

Center, Newport, Oregon.

Silverleaf whitefly.—The silverleaf whitefly, also known as the

sweetpotato whitefly, continues to cause millions of dollars in crop

damage in several States, including Hawaii. The Committee recommends participation by all affected States in the collaborative effort to control this pest.

Small farms.—The Committee expects the ARS to continue its

support for the South Central Family Farm Research Center at

Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than the 2001 level

for continuation of agroforestry research in conjunction with work

at the University of Missouri. In addition, the Committee provides

$50,000 for a cooperative agreement related to the alternative use

of Shiitake mushrooms.

Small fruits research, Corvallis, OR.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research to the long-term economic vitality of the small fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest. The Committee provides an increase

of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the Center

for program upgrades and cooperative agreements.

Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the USDA Small Fruits Research Station

in Poplarville, MS, and provides an increase of $300,000 from the

fiscal year 2001 level to expand the research efforts of the station

on ornamental and vegetable crops.

Soil-plant-nutrient research.—The Committee recognizes the important research carried out in the ARS soil-plant-nutrient research laboratory at Ft. Collins to enhance water and soil quality

with precision/conservation farming. This research will lead to advanced farm management and disease control technologies. The

Committee provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for

the addition of a plant physiology scientist and additional research

support for this laboratory.

Sorghum research.—Over 7.7 million acres of sorghum are grown

in the United States with an estimated harvest of 470 million

bushels. Resources invested in research and technology development will be a major factor in determining the future growth and

competitiveness of the U.S. grain sorghum industry. A strong grain

sorghum research program benefits producers and users of sorghum by enhancing production efficiency, quality, and new uses.

The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 from the level

available in fiscal year 2001 for this important crop, $80,000 of
37

which should be provided in support of the existing ARS grain sorghum project at Manhattan, KS.

Soybean genetics, MO.—The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for research conducted by

the ARS at Columbia, MO, for two additional soybean geneticists

to focus research on genetic improvement of soybeans to increase

productivity and value due to protein, oil, and nutrition composition. One new position will be located at Columbia and two positions will continue to be located at and collaborate with the Danforth Plant Science Center.

Subterranean termite.—The Committee provides funding at the

fiscal year 2001 level to continue termite research in Hawaii to devise and test control methods that do not endanger public health

and environmental preservation goals.

Sugarbeet research.—The Committee acknowledges the need for

additional research on sugarbeet irrigation technologies and basic

research on the interactions between fertility, genotype, irrigation

and crop quality. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000

for fiscal year 2002 for scientific staffing at the USDA research station at Kimberly, ID.

Sugarcane research.—Sugarcane farmers have traditionally

burned cane in the field before transport to the mill to achieve efficiency, a practice which is crucial to the survival of the sugarcane

industry. However, residue from burning is a nuisance and potential hazard to nearby neighborhoods. The Committee provides an

increase of $600,000 to the ARS Research Station in Houma, LA,

to develop new sugarcane varieties that can be harvested efficiently

without burning, evaluate new breeding lines more adaptable to

‘‘green cane’’ harvesting, and examine aspects of bioenergy, new

chemistries, and separator technologies to find alternative products

and uses of cane biomass.

Sweet potato research.—Sweet potato is a high value crop but it

is attacked by numerous pests, including wireworms, field crickets,

and white grub. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000

from the fiscal year 2001 level for ARS Stoneville, MS, to conduct

research on sweet potato and vegetable insects in cooperation with

Alcorn State University.

Tamarix research.—Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody invasive

plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming large

amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like willow and

cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem in Nevada, California, Texas, and other Western States. The Committee is aware

of the ARS’ biocontrol field trials on China beetles to eradicate

tamarix and provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002

to accelerate research on tamarix control using China beetles and

to expand research on cheat grass at the ARS research station in

Reno, NV.

Temperate fruit flies.—The Committee recognizes the importance

and significance of research related to the temperate fruit fly not

only for the application to the pest’s primary target, cherries, but

for the potential application to other tree fruits. In addition, this

research will prove invaluable as the horticulture industry combats

artificial trade barriers established by foreign entities when exporting Pacific Northwest fruit. The Committee continues fiscal year
38

2001 funding for research on temperate fruit flies at the ARS station in Yakima, WA.

Tropical aquaculture research.—The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the Oceanic Institute of Hawaii

for continuation of the comprehensive research program focused on

feeds, nutrition, and global competitiveness of the domestic aquaculture industry.

Trout genome mapping.—The Committee supports animal

genomics, the development of genetic and physical maps, along

with research on gene structure and function. Declining natural

fishery harvests and rapidly growing populations concerned with

healthy eating mean that, worldwide, aquaculture production will

need to increase some 300 percent by 2025 to meet projected seafood demand. Investing in trout genome mapping is a crucial investment strategy that will lead to the identification of genes affecting production traits, improve the accuracy of genetic selection

for superior strains through market-assisted selection, facilitate the

genetic enhancement of animal populations, and be useful for characterizing new, potentially valuable germplasm populations. Genome mapping will allow the American aquaculture industry to remain internationally competitive. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to support Trout

Genome Mapping at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water

Aquaculture in cooperation with West Virginia University.

Turfgrass research.—There is not presently a comprehensive national system for collecting, storing and evaluating turfgrass varieties and experimental selections in the United States and Canada.

The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for the ARS Turfgrass Evaluation Program

(NTEP) to establish, maintain, and collect data for evaluation trials

of turfgrass varieties and experimental selections.

U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.—The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2001

level for the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. Of

the amount provided, $300,000 is for the University of Hawaii at

Hilo to increase its capacity to complement the research of the Center.

Varroa mite research.—The varroa mite is a major threat to

honey bees as well as to a host of agricultural plants that depend

on bees for their pollination. The Committee recognizes the ongoing

work carried out at the ARS Honey Bee Laboratory in Baton

Rouge, LA, to control the varroa and other parasitic mites and provides an increase for fiscal year 2002 of $500,000 for this research.

Vegetable crops research.—The Committee provides an increase

of $250,000 for the ARS Vegetable Crops Research Unit at Madison, WI.

Virus-free potato germplasm.—The Committee recognizes the

need for increased research to evaluate potatoes grown in Northern

climates, particularly in developing virus-free potato germplasm.

Virus-free potatoes will allow potato producers in Alaska and other

Northern States to increase export trade with Pacific rim countries.

The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for fiscal year

2002 for an ARS cooperative project with the University of Alaska.
39

Viticulture research.—With the emerging importance of the grape

and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee provides $450,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension

Center, for research at the Center, and for cooperative research

agreements with University of Idaho researchers for viticulture research. The Committee also provides an increase of $400,000 from

the fiscal year 2001 level to enhance viticulture research at the

Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research, of which $200,000 is

to support additional research at the Center, and $200,000 is to be

awarded competitively for collaborative research between the University of Idaho, Washington State University, and Oregon State

University.

Waste management research.—The Agricultural Research Service

initiated a cooperative waste management program with Western

Kentucky University with emphasis on development of environmentally-friendly management systems for waste management

from poultry farms and processing plants. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program and provides an increase of

$750,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for an ARS expanded joint

research project with Western Kentucky University to examine the

use of chicken litter as a fertilizer source for fescue pasture, as a

nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural applications such

as mushroom culturing.

Watershed research, Columbia, MO.—The Committee includes

$325,000 in fiscal year 2002 funding for ARS for laboratory analysis of water samples collected during implementation of, and in

accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, Assessment,

and Stewardship Project.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $74,037,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 30,462,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 99,625,000

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

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

used by, the Agricultural Research Service. Routine construction or

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the

Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,625,000. This is

$25,588,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and $69,163,000

more than the budget request. The Committee’s specific recommendations are indicated in the following table:
40

ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

State and facility

Fiscal year— Committee

recommenda2001 enacted tion 2002 budget

estimate

Arizona: Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory,

Maricopa ................................................................................... 4,989 .................... ....................

California:

Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis .............. .................... 5,000 5,000

Western Regional Research Center, Albany ......................... 4,889 3,800 2,000

District of Columbia: U.S. National Arboretum ............................. 3,323 4,600 ....................

Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center ............ 4,989 .................... 3,000

Idaho: Advanced Genetics Laboratory, Aberdeen .......................... .................... .................... 500

Illinois:

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research,

Peoria ............................................................................... .................... 6,500 6,500

USDA greenhouse complex, Urbana ..................................... 3,592 .................... ....................

Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames .............................. 8,980 .................... 40,000

Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing Research Laboratory, Manhattan ............................................................................................. 3,492 .................... 3,000

Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research Center, Orono .................................................................................. 2,495 .................... 3,000

Maryland:

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville .............. 13,271 .................... 3,000

National Agricultural Library, Beltsville ............................... 1,766 1,800 ....................

Minnesota: Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul ........................... .................... .................... 300

Mississippi:

National Biological Control Laboratory, Stoneville ............... 4,989 .................... 8,400

Mid South Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville ................... .................... .................... 800

Montana: Fort Keogh Laboratory, Miles City ................................. 5,288 .................... ....................

New York: Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport .......... 6,985 3,762 3,000

New Mexico: Jornada Experimental Range Management Research Laboratory, Las Cruces ................................................. .................... .................... 475

Oklahoma: Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward .......................................................................................... .................... .................... 1,500

Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional Research Center, Philadelphia .. .................... 5,000 3,000

South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston ............... .................... .................... 4,500

South Dakota: Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory,

Brookings .................................................................................. .................... .................... 850

Utah: Poisonous Plant Laboratory, Logan ..................................... 4,989 .................... 5,600

West Virginia: National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown ........................................................................ .................... .................... 2,200

Wisconsin: Cereal Crops Laboratory, Madison .............................. .................... .................... 3,000

Total ................................................................................. 74,037 30,462 99,625

The Committee provides funds for design of the Advanced Genetics Laboratory, National Animal Disease Laboratory, Cereal Disease Laboratory, Mid South Horticultural Laboratory, Southern

Plains Range Research Laboratory, and the Northern Grain Insects

Research Laboratory. Funds are also provided for design and associated land acquisition costs of the Cereal Crops Laboratory and

land acquisition costs relating to the National Cold Water Marine

Aquaculture Center for branch facilities located at Franklin,

Maine. Funds are provided for design and construction of the

Southern Plains Range Research Laboratory. Of funds provided for
41

the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, $900,000 may be

used for necessary design costs.

Funds are also provided to complete construction of the Western

Human Nutrition Research Center, National Biological Control

Laboratory, Agricultural Utilization Research Center, U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory, and the

National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture. The funds

provided for the Jornada Experimental Range Management Research Laboratory are to complete the Headquarters Building.

Additional funds are provided toward construction of the Western

Regional Research Center, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research

Center, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Plum Island Animal Disease Center, and

Eastern Regional Research Center. Due to budgetary constraints,

the Committee is unable to provide the full amount required to

complete construction of all projects.

The Committee is aware of opportunities in the area of renewable resources, including forest products, floriculture, and horticulture and directs the Secretary to submit a feasibility study on

the establishment of an ARS Center for Renewable Resources at

Jackson’s Mill, WV, to the Committee on Appropriations of the

House and Senate by March 1, 2002.

The Committee is aware of growing threats of vandalism and

other acts which might disrupt ongoing research at ARS locations

and potentially result in risks to property and employee safety. The

ARS should provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations

of the House and Senate by March 1, 2002, on facility security

measures now in place and possible improvements to ensure program integrity and personal safety.

The Committee is aware of the need for facilities adequate to

consolidate ARS scientists in Raleigh, North Carolina, and directs

the ARS to carry out a feasibility study to be submitted to the

Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March

1, 2002, on the location’s modernization needs including building

size, costs, and a list of primary facilities including, but not limited

to, laboratory space, greenhouses, and quarantine areas.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 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 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

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $505,079,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 407,319,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 542,580,000
42

The research and education programs administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s principal entree to the university system of the United States to support higher

education in food and agricultural sciences and to conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C.

361a–361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962 (16

U.S.C. 582a–7); Public Law 89–106, section (2) (7 U.S.C. 450i); the

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy

Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) and the Agricultural Research,

Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture participates with

State and other sources of funding to encourage and assist the

State institutions to conduct agricultural research through the

State agricultural experiment stations of the 50 States, the District

of Columbia, and the territories; by approved schools of forestry; by

the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other eligible institutions.

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination

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

the agricultural industry of America.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For research and education activities of the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends $542,580,000. This amount is $37,501,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and $135,261,000 more than the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities of the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service, as compared to the

fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Payments under Hatch act ............................................................. 180,148 180,148 180,148

Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis) ........................... 21,884 21,884 21,884

Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University .................... 32,604 32,604 32,604

Special research grants (Public Law 89–106):

Advanced genetic technologies (KY) ..................................... 474 ................... 750

Advanced spatial technologies (MS) ..................................... 998 ................... 998

Aegilops cylindricum (WA) ..................................................... 359 ................... 359

Aflatoxin (IL) .......................................................................... 131 ................... ...................

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

Agricultural diversity—Red River Trade Corridor (MN,

ND) ..................................................................................... 374 ................... 374

Agricultural telecommunications (NY) ................................... 424 ................... ...................

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA) ......................... 349 ................... 349

Agriculture water usage (GA) ................................................ 299 ................... 299
43

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Agroecology (MD) ................................................................... 284 ................... ...................

Air quality (TX) ....................................................................... .................. ................... 800

Alliance for food protection (GA, NE) .................................... 299 ................... 299

Alternative crops (ND) ........................................................... 624 ................... ...................

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

Alternative nutrient management (VT) .................................. 190 ................... 190

Alternative salmon products (AK) ......................................... 644 ................... 644

Alternative uses for tobacco (MD) ........................................ .................. ................... 450

Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS) ............ 1,631 ................... 1,631

Apple fire blight (MI, NY) ...................................................... 499 ................... 499

Aquaculture (AR) .................................................................... 237 ................... ...................

Aquaculture (FL) .................................................................... 445 ................... ...................

Aquaculture (LA) .................................................................... 329 ................... 329

Aquaculture (MS) ................................................................... 591 ................... 591

Aquaculture (NC) ................................................................... 299 ................... 299

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

Aquaculture (ID, WA) ............................................................. 284 ................... 750

Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV) ....... 748 ................... 748

Armillaria root rot (MI) .......................................................... .................. ................... 200

Asparagus technology and production (WA) ......................... 225 ................... 325

Babcock Institute (WI) ........................................................... 599 ................... 599

Beef technology transfer (MO) .............................................. 284 ................... 300

Biobased technology (MI) ...................................................... 284 ................... ...................

Bioinformatics (VA) ................................................................ 474 ................... ...................

Biomass-based energy reserach (OK, MS) ............................ 900 ................... 1,200

Biotechnology (NC) ................................................................. 284 ................... 383

Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA) ....... 247 ................... 247

Bovine tuberculosis (MI) ........................................................ 324 ................... 324

Brucellosis vaccine (MT) ........................................................ 495 ................... 495

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

Center for Rural Studies (VT) ................................................ 200 ................... 300

Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD) ....................................... 175 ................... 350

Chesapeake Bay aquaculture ................................................ 391 ................... ...................

Citrus canker (FL) .................................................................. 4,740 ................... ...................

Citrus tristeza ........................................................................ 740 ................... ...................

Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA) ..................... 679 ................... 679

Cool season legume research (ID, WA) ................................. 328 ................... 328

Cranberry/blueberry (MA) ....................................................... 175 ................... 175

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

Crop genomics (MS) .............................................................. .................. ................... 800

Crop integration and production (SD) ................................... .................. ................... 250

Crop diversification (ND, MO) ............................................... .................. ................... 1,000

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

Dairy farm profitability (PA) .................................................. 284 ................... 300

Delta rural revitalization (MS) ............................................... 205 ................... 205

Designing foods for health (TX) ............................................ 562 ................... 862

Diaprepes/root weevil (FL) ..................................................... 394 ................... ...................

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

Ecosystems (AL) ..................................................................... 499 ................... ...................

Efficient irrigation (NM, TX) .................................................. 1,185 ................... 1,185

Environmental biotechnology (RI) .......................................... 190 ................... 190

Environmental horticulture (FL) ............................................. 284 ................... ...................

Environmental research (NY) ................................................. 399 ................... ...................
44

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY) ................................ 227 ................... ...................

Environmentally-safe products (VT) ...................................... 245 ................... 245

Exotic pest diseases (CA) ...................................................... 1,247 ................... 1,500

Expanded wheat pasture (OK) ............................................... 292 ................... 292

Farm injuries and illnesses (NC) .......................................... 284 ................... ...................

Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT) .................................. 692 ................... 850

Feedstock conversion (SD) ..................................................... .................. ................... 700

Fish and shellfish technologies (VA) .................................... 474 ................... ...................

Floriculture (HI) ...................................................................... 249 ................... 500

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO) ..... 948 ................... 1,250

Food irradiation (IA) ............................................................... 225 ................... 225

Food Marketing Policy Center (CT) ........................................ 494 ................... 494

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

Food quality (AK) ................................................................... 349 ................... 349

Food safety (AL) ..................................................................... 520 ................... 620

Food safety research consortium (NY) .................................. 284 ................... ...................

Food safety risk assessment (ND) ........................................ .................. ................... 1,000

Food Systems Research Group (WI) ...................................... 499 ................... 499

Forages for advancing livestock production (KY) ................. 374 ................... 374

Forestry (AR) .......................................................................... 522 ................... ...................

Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO) ..................... 347 ................... ...................

Generic commodity promotions, research and evaluation

(NY) .................................................................................... 198 ................... ...................

Global change/ultraviolet radiation ....................................... 1,431 1,431 1,431

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

Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture

(ID, OR, WA) ...................................................................... 422 ................... 422

Hoop barns (IA) ...................................................................... .................. ................... 250

Human nutrition (IA) .............................................................. 472 ................... 472

Human nutrition (LA) ............................................................. 750 ................... 1,000

Human nutrition (NY) ............................................................ 621 ................... ...................

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

Illinois/Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology ........................... 1,239 ................... 1,239

Improved dairy management practices (PA) ......................... 397 ................... 397

Improved early detection of crop disease (NC) .................... 198 ................... 198

Improved fruit practices (MI) ................................................ 444 ................... 244

Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID) ......... .................. ................... 800

Infectious disease research (CO) .......................................... 299 ................... 800

Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR) ................. 1,247 ................... 1,247

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

Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND) ..................... 142 ................... 450

International arid lands consortium ..................................... 494 ................... ...................

Iowa Biotechnology Consortium ............................................. 1,561 ................... 1,561

Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX) ...................................... 569 ................... 569

Lowbush blueberry research (ME) ......................................... 259 ................... 259

Maple research (VT) ............................................................... 119 ................... 150

Meadowfoam (OR) .................................................................. 299 ................... 299

Michigan biotechnology consortium ...................................... 723 ................... ...................

Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance ................. 461 ................... 461

Midwest agricultural products (IA) ....................................... 645 ................... 645

Milk safety (PA) ..................................................................... 374 ................... 750

Minor use animal drugs (IR–4) ............................................ 549 549 735

Molluscan shellfish (OR) ....................................................... 399 ................... 399
45

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Montana Sheep Institute ....................................................... .................. ................... 500

Multi-commodity research (OR) ............................................. 363 ................... 363

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

National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY) .... 284 ................... ...................

National biological impact assessment program ................. 253 253 253

Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM) ................... 127 ................... 150

Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV) ................................ 299 ................... 500

New crop opportunities (AK) .................................................. 495 ................... 495

New crop opportunities (KY) .................................................. 723 ................... 750

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

Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialities (AL) ................... 284 ................... ...................

Oil resources from desert plants (NM) ................................. 175 ................... 200

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

Ozone air quality (CA) ........................................................... .................. ................... 500

Pasture and forage research (UT) ......................................... 249 ................... 249

Peach tree short life (SC) ..................................................... 179 ................... 179

Peanut allergy reduction (AL) ................................................ 499 ................... ...................

Pest control alternatives (SC) ............................................... 117 ................... 350

Phytophthora root rot (NM) .................................................... 138 ................... 138

Phytoremediation plant research (OH) .................................. .................. ................... 350

Pierce’s disease (CA) ............................................................. 1,896 ................... 1,500

Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging

(NM) ................................................................................... 249 ................... 249

Potato research ...................................................................... 1,447 ................... 1,600

Precision agriculture (KY) ...................................................... 748 ................... 748

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

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

Produce pricing (AZ) .............................................................. 76 ................... ...................

Protein utilization (IA) ............................................................ 190 ................... 190

Rangeland ecosystems (NM) ................................................. 299 ................... 400

Red snapper research (AL) .................................................... 723 ................... ...................

Regional barley gene mapping project ................................. 587 ................... 950

Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO,TX) .......... 293 ................... 293

Rice modeling (AR) ................................................................ 295 ................... ...................

Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY) ................ .................. ................... 500

Rural Development Centers (PA, IA, ND, MS, OR, LA) .......... 522 522 600

Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO) ..................... 820 ................... 820

Russian wheat aphid (CO) .................................................... 249 ................... 400

Safe vegetable production (GA) ............................................ 284 ................... ...................

Satsuma orange research (AL) .............................................. 474 ................... 500

Sclerotina disease research (MN) ......................................... 237 ................... ...................

Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and marketing (MS) ........................................................................ 304 ................... 304

Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK) .......... 1,165 ................... 1,165

Seafood safety (MA) ............................................................... 277 ................... 277

Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID) ......................................... 324 ................... 400

Soil and environmental quality (DE) ..................................... .................. ................... 150

Southwest consortium for plant genetics & water resources .............................................................................. 368 ................... 368

Soybean cyst nematode (MO) ................................................ 599 ................... 700

Soybean research (IL) ............................................................ .................. ................... 1,000

STEEP—water quality in Pacific Northwest ......................... 499 ................... 499

Sustainable agriculture (CA) ................................................. 392 ................... ...................
46

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Sustainable agriculture (MI) .................................................. 444 ................... 444

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA) ............ 100 ................... 125

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

Sustainable beef supply (MT) ................................................ 742 ................... 1,250

Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources

(VA) .................................................................................... .................. ................... 474

Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT) ....... 461 ................... 461

Synthetic gene technology (OH) ............................................ .................. ................... 210

Swine waste management (NC) ............................................ 499 ................... 400

Technological development of renewable resources (MO) .... 284 ................... ...................

Tillage, silviculture, waste management (LA) ...................... 212 ................... 500

Tomato wilt virus (GA) .......................................................... 249 ................... ...................

Tropical aquaculture (FL) ...................................................... 198 ................... ...................

Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR ............................ 3,854 ................... 3,854

Tri-state joint peanut research (AL) ..................................... .................. ................... 750

Turkey carna virus (IN) .......................................................... 200 ................... ...................

Value-added product development from agricultural resources (MT) ...................................................................... 331 ................... 331

Value-added products (IL) ..................................................... 95 ................... ...................

Vidalia onions (GA) ................................................................ 249 ................... ...................

Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA,) ..................................... 1,497 ................... 2,000

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

Weed control (ND) .................................................................. 435 ................... 435

Wetland plants (LA) ............................................................... 599 ................... 599

Wheat genetic research (KS) ................................................. 260 ................... 260

Wheat sawfly research (MT) .................................................. 331 ................... 631

Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN) ....... 5,773 ................... 5,786

Wool research (TX, MT, WY) .................................................. 299 ................... 299

Total, special research grants ................................. 1 85,481 2,755 84,040

Improved pest control:

Emerging pests/critical issues .............................................. 200 200 200

Expert IPM decision support system ..................................... 177 177 177

Integrated pest management ................................................ 2,725 2,725 2,725

IR–4 minor crop pest management ...................................... 8,970 8,970 9,970

Pest management alternatives ............................................. 1,619 1,619 1,619

Total, Improved pest control ............................................. 13,691 13,691 14,691

National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants ................. 105,767 105,767 137,000

Animal health and disease (sec. 1433) ........................................ 5,098 5,098 5,098

Alternative crops ............................................................................. 798 ................... 898

Critical Agricultural Materials Act ................................................. 639 ................... 800

1994 Institutions research program .............................................. 998 998 998

Institution challenge grants ........................................................... 4,340 4,340 4,340

Graduate fellowships grants .......................................................... 2,993 2,993 2,993

Multicultural scholars program ...................................................... 998 998 998

Hispanic education partnership grants .......................................... 3,492 3,492 3,492

Capacity building grants (1890 Institutions) ................................ 9,479 9,479 9,479

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ................................................ 1,549 1,549 1,549
47

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2001

appropriation 2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions

grants ......................................................................................... 2,993 2,993 3,000

Secondary agriculture education .................................................... 798 798 1,000

Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE ................. 9,230 9,230 13,000

Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475) .................................................... 3,991 3,991 4,000

Federal administration:

Agriculture development in the American Pacific ................ 563 ................... 563

Agriculture waste utilization (WV) ......................................... 495 ................... 750

Agriculture water policy (GA) ................................................ 365 ................... 365

Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND) ................ 258 ................... 258

Animal waste management (OK) .......................................... 274 ................... 400

Aquaculture (OH) ................................................................... .................. ................... 500

Biotechnology (MS) ................................................................ 590 ................... 850

Botanical research (UT) ......................................................... .................. ................... 800

Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA) ............ 427 ................... 427

Center for innovative food technology (OH) .......................... 759 ................... 759

Center for North American Studies (TX) ............................... 87 ................... 87

Climate change research (FL) ............................................... 170 ................... ...................

Cotton research (TX) .............................................................. 499 ................... 1,100

Data Information system ....................................................... 2,120 2,120 2,120

Feed efficiency (WV) .............................................................. .................. ................... 200

Geographic information system ............................................. 1,023 ................... 1,223

Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH) ................. 100 ................... ...................

Livestock marketing information center (CO) ....................... 185 ................... 200

Mariculture (NC) .................................................................... 324 ................... 450

Mississippi Valley State University ....................................... 646 ................... 646

National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (GA) ................ 399 ................... 399

Office of Extramural Programs .............................................. 448 448 448

Pay costs and FERS ............................................................... 1,098 1,594 1,594

Peer panels ............................................................................ 349 349 349

PM–10 air quality study (WA) ............................................... 435 ................... ...................

Precision agriculture/Geospatial Training and Application

Center (AL) ........................................................................ 586 ................... ...................

Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (AL) ................................................................ 147 ................... 600

Salmon quality standards (AK) ............................................. .................. ................... 150

Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX) ...................... 4,168 ................... 4,300

Sustainable agriculture development (OH) ........................... 474 ................... ...................

Urban silviculture (NY) .......................................................... 237 ................... ...................

Water quality (IL) ................................................................... 348 ................... 348

Water quality (ND) ................................................................. 394 ................... 425

Water pollutants (WV) ............................................................ .................. ................... 257

Wetland plants (WV) .............................................................. 142 ................... ...................

Total, Federal administration ................................... 1 18,108 4,511 20,568

Total, CSREES ........................................................... 505,079 407,319 542,580

1 Totals may not add due to rounding.

Hatch Act.—The Committee acknowledges the beneficial impact

Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and research
48

involving agriculture. The Committee recommends maintaining

Hatch Act funding at the fiscal year 2001 level.

Special research grants under Public Law 89–106.—The Committee recommends a total of $84,040,000. Specifics of individual

grant allowances are included in the table above. Special items are

discussed below.

The Committee is aware of the need for special research grants

in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand promising

breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural sciences that are

awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition to these grants, the

Committee believes research should be supplemented by additional

funding that is obtained on a competitive basis.

The Committee directs the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the feasibility of a competitive grants program that would be limited to current special research grant participants.

Aquaculture (Stoneville).—Of the $591,000 provided for this

grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for continued

studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical Acoustics in cooperation

with the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station

[MAFES] and the Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville.

Potato research.—The Committee expects the Department to ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds are to

be awarded competitively after review by the potato industry working group.

Wood utilization research.—The Committee recommends

$5,786,000 for wood utilization research in order to provide fiscal

year 2000 level of funding for each of the research centers.

Aquaculture centers.—The Committee recommends $4,000,000,

an increase of $9,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level, to support the

regional aquaculture centers.

The Committee is aware of and supports yellow perch aquaculture research efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research Institute. This research is done in collaboration with the

North Central Regional Aquaculture Center.

Competitive research grants.—The Committee supports the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] and

provides funding of $137,000,000 for the program, an increase of

$31,233,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level.

The Committee remains determined to see that quality research

and enhanced human resources development in the agricultural

and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the

Committee continues its direction that 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for a USDA experimental program to stimulate competitive research [USDA–EPSCoR].

Alternative crops.—The Committee recommends $898,000 for alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research efforts

on canola, an increase of $299,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level.
49

Sustainable agriculture.—The Committee recommends

$13,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, an increase of $3,770,000

from the fiscal year 2001 level.

Increased funds provided for sustainable agriculture research

and education should include, but in no way be limited to, projects

on organic agriculture. While organic production practices are included under the umbrella of sustainable agriculture, it is critical

that funding increases be directed also to research on broader sustainable agriculture production systems and practices. The Committee also directs the Department to allocate a portion of funding

increases to on-farm demonstration and producer-research projects.

Higher education.—The Committee recommends $14,823,000 for

higher education. The Committee provides $2,993,000 for graduate

fellowships; $4,340,000 for challenge grants; $998,000 for multicultural scholarships; $3,492,000 for grants for Hispanic education

partnership grants; and $3,000,000 for Alaska native-serving and

native Hawaiian-serving institutions.

The Committee notes that the Department’s higher education

multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of scholars

from under-represented groups. The Committee directs the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully in this program.

Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions

education grants.—The Committee provides $3,000,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible institutions or consortia of

eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with grant funds to

be awarded equally between Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the

programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law

106–78). The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the

use of grant funds as authorized.

Federal administration.—The Committee provides $20,568,000

for Federal administration. The Committee’s specific recommendations are reflected in the table above.

Geographic Information System Program.—The Committee recommends $1,223,000, an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year

2001 level, for the Geographic Information System Program. The

Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made available for program activities of entities in the same areas as in 2001

on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected that program

management costs will be kept at a minimum and any remaining

funds will be distributed to the sites.

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $7,100,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,100,000

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized

by Public Law 103–382 provides an endowment for the 1994 landgrant institutions (30 tribally controlled colleges). This program

will enhance educational opportunity for Native Americans by

building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of

student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty

preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. Beginning with 2001, income funds are also
50

available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall

withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal year,

and after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed

among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the

proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; and

40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in equal

shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the

Committee recommends $7,100,000. This is the same as the 2001

level and the budget request.

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $432,475,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 413,404,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 434,038,000

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever

Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is authorized

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

work that consists of the development of practical applications of

research knowledge and the giving of instruction and practical

demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in

agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home

economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application of

such information by demonstrations, publications, through 4–H

clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at

the colleges.

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

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

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

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $434,038,000. This amount is $1,563,000 more than

the 2001 appropriation and $20,634,000 more than the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the fiscal year 2001

and budget request levels:
51

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)—EXTENSION

ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c) ........................................... 275,940 275,940 275,940

Smith-Lever section 3(d):

Farm safety ....................................................................... 3,991 .................... 4,700

Food and nutrition education ............................................ 58,566 58,566 58,566

Indian reservation agents ................................................. 1,996 1,996 1,996

Pest management ............................................................. 10,759 10,759 10,759

Rural development centers ............................................... 906 906 1,000

Sustainable agriculture ..................................................... 3,792 3,792 4,500

Youth at risk ..................................................................... 8,481 8,481 8,481

Youth farm safety education and certification ................ 499 499 499

Renewable Resources Extension Act .......................................... 3,185 3,185 5,000

1890 colleges and Tuskegee University ..................................... 28,181 28,181 28,181

1890 facilities grants ................................................................ 12,173 12,173 13,500

Rural health and safety education ............................................ 2,622 .................... 2,622

Extension services at the 1994 institutions .............................. 3,273 3,273 3,273

Subtotal ......................................................................... 414,363 407,751 419,017

Federal administration and special grants:

General administration ...................................................... 4,726 5,202 5,202

After-school program (CA) ................................................ 398 .................... .......................

Ag in the Classroom ......................................................... 451 451 451

Avian conservation (PA) .................................................... .................... .................... 400

Beef producers improvement (AR) .................................... 197 .................... 197

Botanical garden initiative (IL) ......................................... 237 .................... 237

Conservation technology transfer (WI) .............................. 474 .................... 500

Dairy education (IA) .......................................................... 237 .................... 237

Delta Teachers Academy ................................................... 3,492 .................... 3,492

Diabetes detection, prevention (WA) ................................. 924 .................... .......................

Extension specialist (MS) .................................................. 100 .................... 100

Efficient irrigation (NM/TX) ............................................... 1,896 .................... .......................

Family farm beef industry network (OH) .......................... 1,317 .................... .......................

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database/FARAD ........... 284 .................... .......................

Food Electronically and Effectively Distributed (FEED)

demonstration project (OR) .......................................... 167 .................... .......................

Food product development (AK) ........................................ .................... .................... 350

Health education leadership (KY) ..................................... .................... .................... 1,000

Income enhancement demonstration (OH) ........................ 245 .................... .......................

Integrated cow/calf management (IA) .............................. 284 .................... .......................

Iowa vitality center ............................................................ .................... .................... 350

National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA) ....................... 195 .................... 195

Pilot technology transfer (WI) ........................................... 163 .................... .......................

Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS) .................................... 325 .................... 325

Potato pest management (WI) .......................................... 190 .................... 200

Range improvement (NM) ................................................. 197 .................... 300

Rural development (AK) .................................................... 617 .................... 650

Rural development (NM) ................................................... 279 .................... 335

Rural rehabilitation (GA) ................................................... 245 .................... .......................

Urban horticulture (WI) ..................................................... .................... .................... 500

Vocational agriculture (OK) ............................................... 275 .................... .......................

Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY) ....... 197 .................... .......................

Subtotal, Federal administration ............................. 18,112 5,653 15,021
52

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)—EXTENSION

ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Total, extension activities ........................................ 432,475 413,404 434,038

Farm safety.—Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the Committee recommends a funding level of $3,500,000 for the

AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the National Easter Seal Society.

Pest management.—Included in the amount provided by the

Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is continued funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for potato late blight control, including $400,000 for early disease identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and late blight research activities

in Maine.

Rural health and safety.—The Committee recommends

$2,622,000, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level, for rural health

and safety education. Included in this amount is $2,190,000 for the

ongoing rural health program in Mississippi to train health care

professionals to serve in rural areas, and $432,000 for the ongoing

rural health and outreach initiative in Louisiana.

Conservation technology transfer.—The Committee expects conservation technology transfer funds provided for Wisconsin to be

used exclusively to support the University of Wisconsin-Extension,

and University of Wisconsin-Madison ‘‘Nutrient Management Education and Implementation Program’’ and the ‘‘Discovery Farms

Program,’’ which is a component of the Wisconsin Agricultural

Stewardship Initiative (WASI).

Hoop barns.—The Committee is aware of emerging alternatives

for the housing of animals such as hoop barns which may generate

more humane treatment in livestock production. The Committee

encourages the Cooperative Extension Service to provide information to farmers on these new developments in order to make informed decisions regarding production.

Potato pest management.—Within the funds provided for potato

pest management, consideration for funding is to be given to the

application for the pesticide use and risk reduction program at the

Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems submitted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison to provide information about alternatives to pesticides that are at risk of losing their registration

under implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $41,849,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 41,849,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,350,000

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 Lever 3(d) programs previously funded under
53

Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are included

under this account, as well as new integrated programs to address

issues such as pest management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends

$42,350,000. This amount is $501,000 more than the 2001 level

and the budget request.

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

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)—INTEGRATED

ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001

Fiscal year

2002 budget

Committee

recommendation

Water Quality .............................................................................. 12,971 12,971 12,971

Food Safety ................................................................................. 14,967 14,967 14,967

Pesticide Impact Assessment .................................................... 4,531 4,531 4,531

Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation ................................. 1,497 1,497 1,497

FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems ... 4,889 4,889 4,889

Methyl Bromide Transition Program ........................................... 2,495 2,495 2,495

Organic Transition Program ....................................................... 499 499 1,000

Total, Integrated Activities ........................................... 41,849 41,849 42,350

Organic transition program.—The organic transition program

shall be administered by the Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) in order to address all

issues that are applicable to the transition process to certified organic production, including soil and crop fertility; marketing; weed,

insect, and other pest management; and other issues.

Water quality.—The Committee expects a continuation of funding

at current levels for the Agricultural Systems for Environmental

Quality Program and the Management Systems Evaluation Area

Program. The Committee continues funding for the Farm*A*Syst

program at no less than the fiscal year 2001 level.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $634,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 654,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 654,000

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; Agricul-
54

tural Marketing Service; and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$654,000. This is $20,000 more than the 2001 level and the same

as the budget request.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations User fees 1 Total, APHIS

appropriations

Appropriations, 2001 ....................................... $444,584,000 $84,813,000 $529,397,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................... 618,112,000 84,813,000 702,925,000

Committee recommendation ............................ 517,941,000 84,813,000 602,754,000

1 Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct appropriation.

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.

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.

Plant and animal health monitoring.—The Agency conducts programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect endemic and

exotic diseases and pests.

Pest and disease management programs.—The Agency carries out

programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce agricultural losses

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

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

rancher groups, and foundations; and ensure compliance with

interstate movement and other disease control regulations within

the jurisdiction of the Agency.

Animal care.—The Agency conducts regulatory activities which

ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as

required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These

activities include inspection of certain establishments which handle

animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.
55

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of

$602,754,000. This is $73,357,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and $100,171,000 less than the budget request.

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

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Pest and disease exclusion:

Agricultural quarantine inspection ...................................... 38,884 47,254 47,254

User fees 1 ............................................................................ 84,813 84,813 84,813

Subtotal, agricultural quarantine inspection .................. 123,697 132,067 132,067

Cattle ticks ........................................................................... 5,264 5,732 5,732

Foot-and-mouth disease ...................................................... 3,795 3,839 3,839

Import/export ........................................................................ 7,010 8,132 8,132

Trade issues resolution and management .......................... 8,187 11,367 11,367

Fruit fly exclusion and detection ......................................... 32,538 56,018 36,818

Screwworm ............................................................................ 30,308 30,557 30,557

Tropical bunt tick ................................................................. 406 415 415

Total, pest and disease exclusion ................................... 211,205 248,127 228,927

Plant and animal health monitoring:

Animal health monitoring and surveillance ........................ 68,502 71,531 69,731

Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement ............... 6,249 6,601 8,101

Emergency Management System .......................................... 2,990 3,044 3,544

Pest detection ....................................................................... 6,714 6,844 6,844

Total, plant and animal health monitoring .................... 84,455 88,020 88,220

Pest and disease management programs:

Aquaculture .......................................................................... 918 940 1,130

Biocontrol .............................................................................. 8,300 8,759 8,759

Boll weevil ............................................................................ 78,983 33,931 79,157

Brucellosis eradication ......................................................... 9,921 8,450 9,800

Chronic wasting disease ...................................................... .................... .................... 1,000

Emerging plant pests ........................................................... 3,525 99,492 28,577

Golden nematode .................................................................. 579 610 610

Gypsy moth ........................................................................... 4,407 4,559 4,559

Imported fire ant .................................................................. 2,095 2,118 3,618
56

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Johne’s disease .................................................................... .................... .................... 3,000

Noxious weeds ...................................................................... 1,122 1,130 1,380

Pink bollworm ....................................................................... 1,545 1,616 2,000

Pseudorabies ........................................................................ 4,030 34,570 4,151

Scrapie eradication .............................................................. 3,017 21,019 3,119

Tuberculosis .......................................................................... 5,462 18,552 11,925

Wildlife services operations ................................................. 36,700 54,456 44,246

Witchweed ............................................................................. 1,503 1,520 1,520

Total, pest and disease management ............................. 162,107 291,722 208,551

Animal care:

Animal welfare ..................................................................... 12,140 12,767 13,767

Horse protection ................................................................... 397 415 415

Total, animal care ........................................................... 12,537 13,182 14,182

Scientific and technical services:

Biotechnology/environmental protection ............................... 9,999 10,516 10,516

Integrated systems acquisition project ................................ 998 998 998

Plant methods development laboratories ............................ 4,796 5,118 5,118

Veterinary biologics .............................................................. 10,727 11,413 11,913

Veterinary diagnostics .......................................................... 17,476 18,278 18,278

Wildlife services methods development ............................... 11,001 11,455 11,955

Total, scientific and technical services .......................... 54,997 57,778 58,778

Contingency fund .......................................................................... 4,096 4,096 4,096

Total, salaries and expenses ........................................... 529,397 702,925 602,754

Recap (salaries and expenses):

Appropriated ......................................................................... 444,584 618,112 517,941

Agricultural quarantine inspection user fees ...................... 84,813 84,813 84,813

Total, salaries and expenses ........................................... 529,397 702,925 602,754

1 Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of

1996 direct appropriation.

The Committee is unable to provide the full increases requested

in the President’s budget under this account. However, the Committee does provide limited increases for a number of specific animal and plant health programs. The Committee directs the Secretary to continue the use of contingency funding from available

Commodity Credit Corporation monies, as it has in past fiscal

years, to cover all needs as identified in the President’s budget, and

any additional emergencies as determined by the Secretary.

The Committee is aware of developing problems involving growing pest threats in Washington State relating to abandoned apple

orchards, southern pine beetle infestations in Tennessee which may

pose sudden and serious fire hazards, and the discovery of the Columbia Rootrot Nematode which may threaten United States po-
57

tato exports to Mexico and encourages the agency to investigate

these problems.

Pest and Disease Exclusion.—The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act (Public Law 104–127) makes amounts

in excess of $100,000,000 in the agricultural quarantine inspection

(AQI) user fee account directly available for program operations. Of

amounts collected in the user fee account, the first $100,000,000

are subject to appropriation. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $84,813,000 for the AQI user fee account. The Department estimates that an additional $145,000,000 will be collected

and available as provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law 104–127).

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides an appropriation of $47,254,000 for the AQI appropriated account. The Committee recommendation will support a total of 691 staff years for the AQI appropriated account.

The Committee directs the agency to provide funding at no less

than the fiscal year 2001 level for agency inspectors at the U.S./

Mexican border at the San Diego ports of entry.

The Committee urges the Department to actively seek procedural

and/or treatment methods that allow shipment of untreated fruit

grown in Hawaii to cold-weather states during winter months without jeopardizing pest introductions to mainland agriculture. The Committee provides an increase of $4,280,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for fruit fly exclusion and detection activities, of

which $4,000,000 is directed for fruit fly, including olive fruit fly,

trapping and related activities in California. In addition, the agency should continue to use Commodity Credit Corporation funds for

the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, as necessary, as it

has in past years.

The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and less

disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo in Hawaiian airports

and directs the agency to provide not less than the fiscal year 2001

level of funding for sufficient staff-year equivalents of agricultural

quarantine inspectors, operating funds, and inspection equipment

at Hawaii’s direct departure and interline airports.

The Committee also encourages the agency to aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring staff deployment arrangements to

provide services cost effectively when needed by agricultural shippers.

The Committee is further interested in APHIS’s activities regarding the acquisition and deployment of commercially available,

state-of-the-art inspection technology and equipment at key points

of entry, such as Hawaii, for screening passengers’ luggage for

banned agricultural products and reducing the introduction of dangerous pests and diseases into the United States.

Plant and animal health monitoring.—The Committee provides

an increase of $1,852,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for the

animal and plant health regulatory enforcement program.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

a cooperative agreement with Murray State University, Breathitt

Veterinary Center, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, to determine the impact on animal health from common agricultural chemical usage.

The Committee provides an increase of $554,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the emergency management systems program
58

so the agency can respond to crises that threaten the economic

health of the animal industry. The Committee provides an increase of $130,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the pest detection program. The Committee provides an increase of $1,229,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the animal health monitoring and surveillance

(AHMS) program. The total amount provided includes a reduction

of $2,500,000 for Johne’s Disease, which appears as a new program

under pest and disease management. Within the amount provided

for AHMS, the Committee includes the fiscal year 2001 funding

level for National Farm Animal Identification Project for dairy cattle, to be coordinated with the Holstein Association. In addition,

the Committee includes an increase of $500,000 for a cooperative

agreement with the Wisconsin Animal Health Consortium for a

pilot project to aid in creating a universal identification and database retrieval system for tracking the movement of animal and animal-based food products. The Committee urges APHIS and the

Wisconsin Animal Health Consortium to work in concert with the

National Farm Animal Identification Project to ensure that program duplication does not occur. In addition, the Committee provides $200,000 to develop a bio-security demonstration and outreach program in cooperation with the Vermont Department of Agriculture and the University of Vermont College of Agriculture. The Committee provides an increase of $1,852,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for animal and plant health regulatory enforcement. The Committee remains concerned about press accounts

of inhumane treatment of animals and reports that inadequate enforcement of animal welfare regulations has led to repeat violations

and continuing mistreatment of animals. Within the increase provided for regulatory enforcement in fiscal year 2002, $1,500,000 is

directed for enforcement of animal welfare regulations and the

Committee requests the agency provide a report on animal welfare

violations and related enforcement responses by March 1, 2002.

The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for

enforcement of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for

Slaughter Act.

The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

the national poultry improvement plan [NPIP].

Pest and disease management.—The Committee continues its

concern regarding the serious threat to pastures and watersheds

resulting from the introduction of alien weed pests into Hawaii.

The Committee again directs the agency to work with the Hawaii

Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources and Conservation Service to develop an integrated approach, including environmentally-safe biological controls, for eradicating these pests.

The Committee provides $1,130,000 for the aquaculture program,

including an increase of $190,000 more than the fiscal year 2001

funding level to continue the telemetry and population dynamics

studies on depredating species of wildlife in the Southeast. This

funding is necessary to develop methods to help farmers manage

populations of fish-eating birds residing in the Mid-south area that

continuously prey on farm-raised catfish.

Boll weevil.—The Committee provides $174,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 level of funding to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication
59

Program. This funding will provide the active eradication zone

areas with a 30 percent cost share and for possible exceptions to

address special funding requirements arising from extraordinary

circumstances in some States.

The Committee urges the agency to continue funding for the geographic information system development at the fiscal year 2001

funding level so that the economic entomological efficiency of the

boll weevil eradication program can continue.

Brucellosis eradication.—The Committee provides the fiscal year

2001 funding level of $750,000 for the State of Montana to protect

the State’s brucellosis-free status and for the operation of the bison

quarantine facility and the testing of bison which surround Yellowstone National Park.

The Committee also provides funding at the 2001 fiscal year level

of funding for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis

Committee [GYIBC] and encourages the coordination of Federal,

State, and private actions aimed at eliminating brucellosis from

wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Of this amount, $200,000

is allocated to the State chairing the GYIBC. The remainder shall

be equally divided between the other two States.

Chronic wasting disease.—The Committee provides $1,000,000 to

implement a program under pest and disease management for

chronic wasting disease.

Emerging plant pests.—In addition to funds made available

through the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Committee provides an increase of $25,052,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for

emerging plant pests. Within this total are provided funds in the

amount of $2,117,000 for plum pox; $7,242,000 for Pierces disease;

$6,600,000 for the Asian long-horned beetle program in Illinois and

New York, of which no less than $1,500,000 shall be for activities

in the area of Chicago, Illinois; $5,000,000 for citrus canker; and

$4,000,000 for Mormon crickets and grasshoppers in Utah and

other States. The Committee expects that funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation will be made available for other activities relating to these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2002 as

may be necessary.

The Committee directs the agency to provide funding through a

cooperative agreement with the California Department of Food and

Agriculture using either appropriated funds or funds made available through the Commodity Credit Corporation for containment of

Pierces Disease.

Imported fire ant.—The Committee provides an increase of

$1,523,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the shared

responsibility with the States to conduct surveys, compliance monitoring, and enforcement responsibilities affiliated with the fire ant

quarantine of nursery and greenhouse plants. The agency is also

directed to assist in the demonstration of fire ant control methods

on field locations in Mississippi, Arkansas, California, Tennessee,

and other States.

Noxious weeds.—The Committee continues the demonstration

project on kudzu at the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

The Committee also provides $250,000, in association with the

Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the availability and dis-
60

tribution of biological control organisms used in an Integrated

Weed Management system.

The Committee encourages the agency to continue working with

the State of Texas regarding orobanche ramosa at the fiscal year

2001 funding level.

Pink bollworm.—The Committee provides an increase of $455,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for pink

bollworm eradication activities in support of sterile fruit fly release

in the San Joaquin Valley and in Texas and New Mexico.

Tuberculosis.—The Committee provides an increase of $6,463,000

from the fiscal year 2001 funding level to maintain current staffing

levels and related survey and eradication activities. Within the additional funding provided, the Committee directs the agency to address bovine tuberculosis in Michigan.

The Committee is aware of concerns by producers of domestic

reindeer that bovine tuberculosis tests are inaccurately reporting

positive results and causing unnecessary losses to producers. The

Committee requests the agency to examine the testing protocols

used in this context to determine the accuracy and reliability of

these tests. The agency is expected to report to the Committee on

Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2002 on this

evaluation.

Wildlife services operations.—The Committee provides an in- crease of $240,000 for continued Wildlife Services cattail management and blackbird control activities in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Louisiana, and for completion of an environmental impact statement necessary for a baiting program scheduled to begin

in March of 2002.

The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for wildlife services predator control activities. Of the total provided, no less than $1,000,000 shall be available to the Tri-state predator control program for livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the increase in federally listed endangered species, the State’s operations account for

Wildlife Services has suffered financially.

Pursuant to House Report 106–619, the agency issued a report

to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate on

problems related to wolf populations in the United States. That report revealed a disproportionate share of APHIS funding in States

of the Upper Midwest in relation to the size of wolf populations in

that region. The agency is directed to evaluate the distribution of

APHIS funds for wolf depredation activities in all States and report

to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by

January 1, 2002 of actions taken to allocate funding for these activities in a way that best responds to the needs of all States.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2001 level of funding for a cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services Operations in the State of Georgia to address the fluctuations in game

bird and predator species resulting from recent changes in land use

throughout the southeastern United States.

The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 level of funding for the operation of the State Wildlife

Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of preven-
61

tion and control activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The

Committee also continues funding of $500,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and operate a comprehensive

brown tree snake prevention and detection program for Hawaii.

The total amount for these activities is the same as that provided

for fiscal year 2001.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2001 funding level to maintain the Wildlife Services Office in

Vermont.

The Committee provides $300,000 for coyote control program in

West Virginia, where predators have been a major obstacle to

sheep production in that State. The Committee provides $4,600,000 for rabies control activities

and directs the Secretary to use funds from the CCC, as necessary,

for additional control activities. Of the amount provided for rabies

control, no less than $1,300,000 shall be for operations in West Virginia. In addition, no less than the level provided for rabies control

in fiscal year 2001 shall be available to the States of Vermont and

Texas. The agency shall also provide $500,000 to assist rabies control activities in Wyoming. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for wildlife service operations with the

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the

growing demands of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased

animals.

The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level of

funding for the management of beavers in Mississippi. The Committee commends the agency’s assistance in cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce the cropland and

forest damages caused by the beaver population. The Committee

also provides $250,000 for the establishment of a cost sharing beaver control program with interested parish governments in the

State of Louisiana.

The Committee includes $100,000 for the improvement of wildlife

services facilities near Stuttgart, Arkansas.

The Committee notes that APHIS was instructed in fiscal year

2001 to begin a pilot program within its wildlife services division

to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-lethal methods to control

predating species. The agency should provide information to the

Committee on Appropriations of the House and the Senate as early

as possible on the status of that pilot, including a plan by which

the objectives of the pilot can be met within the context of ongoing

programs.

Animal Care.—The Committee provides an increase of

$1,627,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the Animal

Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.

The Committee is seriously concerned by press reports of inhumane animal treatment in regard to livestock production and

slaughter and other activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The Committee provides increases in this and

other accounts to enhance humane treatment of animals. During

consideration of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations

bill, an amendment was adopted to increase funding for animal

welfare inspections, enforcement, and research for improved treat-
62

ment of animals. The Secretary is encouraged to use any additional

funds made available during fiscal year 2001 for these activities in

order to increase program effectiveness as quickly as possible. The

Secretary is also reminded of the request for information on this

subject which was included in Senate Report 107–33.

The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized

animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the President’s

budget.

Scientific and technical services.—The Committee provides an in- crease of $517,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

meet ongoing demands for biotechnology permits/notifications, petitions for deregulation, and licensing of international activities. An

increase of $1,186,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding is

provided for the veterinary biologics program, which is an amount

$500,000 above the level proposed in the budget.

It is the view of the Committee that America’s farmers, ranchers

and veterinarians should have available to them the widest possible range of tools to prevent and control animal disease. The

Committee is concerned that USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics is losing valuable personnel necessary to review and approve

in a timely manner veterinary biologics, including vaccines, to

serve this purpose. To ensure prompt and appropriate review and

approval of important veterinary biologics, including vaccines, the

Committee provides an increase to the Center for Veterinary Biologics and encourages the Department to fully support the Center’s

activities in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the Committee also supports efforts between USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics and

the animal health products industry to establish performance goals

for the review and approval of veterinary biologics. The Committee provides an increase of $802,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level of funding for the veterinary diagnostics program

so that ongoing testing methods can be replaced by more modern

technology.

The Committee provides an increase of $954,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for wildlife services methods development,

which is an amount $500,000 above the level proposed in the budget. Of this increase, $50,000 shall be directed for work at the

Monell Center in Pennsylvania for laboratory analysis of the

chemo-sensory effectiveness of repellents used to reduce harm

caused by deer and other animals. The remaining program increase

beyond pay costs is directed for development of non-lethal predator

control methods at the National Wildlife Research Center.

The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for

the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture Research

Center for rodent control only in active agricultural areas.

Projects identified in Senate Report 106–288 and Conference Report 106–948 that were directed to be funded by the Committee for

fiscal year 2001 are not funded for fiscal year 2002 unless specifically mentioned herein.

In complying with the Committee’s directives, APHIS is expected

not to redirect support for programs and activities without prior

notification to and approval by the House and Senate Committees

on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise directed, the Animal
63

and Plant Health Inspection Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified reductions necessary to carry

out the provisions of this Act are to be implemented in accordance

with the definitions contained in the ‘‘Program, project, and activity’’ section of this report.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $9,848,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,189,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,189,000

The APHIS appropriation for ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ funds

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year 2001

and budget request levels:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 budget

request

Committee recommendation

Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and preventative maintenance ....................................................... 1,996 1,996 1,996

Plum Island, NY ...................................................................... 3,193 3,193 3,193

Quarantine and seed facilities, AK ......................................... 4,659 ..................... .....................

Total, Buildings and Facilities .................................. 9,848 5,189 5,189

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$5,189,000. This amount is $4,659,000 less than the 2001 level and

the same as the budget request.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $65,191,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 71,430,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 71,430,000

The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs

authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities, the primary

ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–

1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51–65); the Cotton

Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471–476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act

(21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
64

Programs administered by this Agency include the market news

services, 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,430,000. This

amount is $6,239,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the

same as the budget request. The Committee provides $14,259,000, the full amount requested,

for the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to collect reliable,

scientific-based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food

processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers. The

PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the Food

Quality Protection Act, which requires thorough re-evaluation of

agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses on individual crops.

The PDP is an effective tool to maintain the availability of critical

products which allow the production of safe and affordable foods.

The Committee provides $5,980,000 for costs associated with implementing the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.

The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program to

promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and civilian

markets. The Committee fully supports this program and expects

the Department again to give full consideration to funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, which includes

Alaska agricultural products and seafood harvested in the State.

The Alaska Grown Program should coordinate with other regional

marketing entities such as the Alaska Fisheries Development

Foundation and the Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development

Council.

The amount provided also includes $6,234,000 for the microbiological data program so that baselines may be established for

the incidence, number and types of food-borne microorganisms. The

Committee expects AMS to coordinate with other agencies of

USDA, other public health agencies of the government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested parties.

The Committee is aware of the unique factors that affect dairy

production in Alaska. Because of these factors, only 51 percent of

Alaska’s dairy needs can be produced in-State. Further, because of

the perishable nature of milk and the cost to ship it, alternatives

to increase milk production at Alaska’s existing State-owned facility, Matanuska Maid Dairy, must be sought. Therefore, the Committee expects AMS, working with other USDA agencies, to continue its assistance to the State of Alaska in addressing this

unique problem.

The Committee is aware of the continuing disastrous economic

situation being faced by the cranberry industry. Cranberry growers

are struggling with continuing low prices for fruit well below the

cost of production. Funding provided last year as part of the Crop
65

Risk Protection Act and the fiscal year 2001 Conference Report for

commodity purchases of cranberries has been helpful but has not

been fully implemented by the Department. Furthermore, far less

than the amount required in the specific language of the fiscal year

2001 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act has

been purchased in the form of fruit concentrate and frozen fruit.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to complete the

purchases as required in those acts and provide the U.S. Senate

and House of Representatives Committees on Appropriations with

a report by March 1, 2002.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2001 ..................................................................................... ($60,596,000)

Budget limitation, 2002 ......................................................................... (60,596,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (60,596,000)

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–

35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and

classing tobacco, cotton, naval stores, and for warehouse examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton Standards

Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores Act, the U.S.

Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in the industry.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $60,596,000. This

amount is the same as the 2001 funding level and the budget request.

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $13,438,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 13,874,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,874,000

Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 612c),

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition programs of the

Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years

2000–2002:
66

SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL

YEARS 2000–2002

Fiscal year—

2000 actual 2001

estimate

2002

estimate

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) ....................... $5,735,557,955 $5,738,448,921 $6,139,942,369

Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106–224) ... ............................ 200,000,000 ............................

Less Rescission .................................................................. ¥15,000 ................................ ............................

Less Transfers:

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................ ¥4,935,199,000 ¥5,127,579,000 ¥5,340,708,000

Commerce Department ...................................................... ¥69,920,523 ¥72,827,819 ¥79,125,978

Total, Transfers ............................................................. ¥5,005,119,523 ¥5,200,406,819 ¥5,419,833,978

Budget Authority ......................................................................... 730,423,432 738,042,102 720,108,391

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year ........................... 112,630,114 241,269,707 218,630,609

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations .......................................... 50,355,227 0 0

Available for Obligation .............................................................. 893,408,773 979,311,809 938,739,000

Less Obligations:

Commodity Procurement:

Child Nutrition Purchases ......................................... 399,999,997 400,000,000 400,000,000

Removal of Defective Commodities .......................... 500,000 1,000,000 ............................

Lamb Grading and Certification Support ................. 0 1,000,000 ............................

Emergency Surplus Removal .................................... 200,214,947 68,589,200 ............................

Diversion Payments ................................................... 30,777,658 10,250,000 ............................

Disaster Relief .......................................................... 0 0 ............................

Specialty Crop Purchases ......................................... 0 200,000,000 ............................

Estimated Future Purchases ..................................... 0 56,800,000 215,000,000

Total, Commodity Procurement ............................ 631,492,602 737,639,200 615,000,000

Administrative Funds:

Commodity Purchase Service .................................... 8,405,567 9,604,000 9,865,000

Marketing, Agreements, and Orders ......................... 12,240,897 13,438,000 13,874,000

Total, Administrative Funds ................................. 20,646,464 23,042,000 23,739,000

Total, Obligations ................................................. 652,139,066 760,681,200 638,739,000

Carryout ....................................................................................... 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000

Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year .................... 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of

$13,874,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing

agreements and orders. This amount is $436,000 more than the

2001 level and the same as the budget estimate.

In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, institutions,

and other domestic feeding programs. The Committee expects the

Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon and salmon nuggets; and determine whether or not there is a surplus and continued low prices

in fiscal year 2002. If there is surplus salmon and continued low

prices in fiscal year 2002, the Committee expects the Department

to purchase surplus salmon for use in the aforementioned feeding

programs or for humanitarian food aid.
67

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $1,347,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,347,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,347,000

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is

authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of

1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are made

to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market alternative

farm commodities; determine methods of providing more reliable

market information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made possible many types of projects, such

as electronic marketing and agricultural product diversification.

Current projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and seeking new outlets for existing farm

produced commodities. The legislation grants the U.S. Department

of Agriculture authority to establish cooperative agreements with

State departments of agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the agricultural marketing chain. The States

perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at

least one-half of the cost of the projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides $1,347,000.

This amount is the same as the 2001 appropriation and the budget

request.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $31,350,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 32,907,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,000,000

1 Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–554.

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

the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices

which affect meat and poultry prices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,000,000. This amount is $2,650,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and $1,093,000 more than the budget request.
68

The Committee provides $400,000 for market contract catalog reporting activities. Additional increases are provided to enhance

concentration and other anti-competitve investigative activities.

The Committee does not assume the $3,758,000 in net savings

from collections from new user fees proposed in the budget.

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2001 ..................................................................................... ($42,463,000)

Budget limitation, 2002 ......................................................................... (42,463,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (42,463,000)

The Agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and official

inspection of rice and grain-related products under the Agricultural

Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was amended in 1981

to require the collection of user fees to fund the costs associated

with the operation, supervision, and administration of Federal

grain inspection and weighing activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the same as

the 2001 level and the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $459,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 476,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 476,000

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $476,000. This amount is

$17,000 more than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $695,171,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 715,542,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 715,747,000

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the

Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection

Act; and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing

plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.

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.
69

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic plants

preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare

meat or poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain

meat and poultry inspection programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $715,747,000. This amount is

$20,576,000 more than the 2001 level and $205,000 more than the

budget request.

The Committee has provided an increase of $205,000 from the

fiscal year 2001 funding level for activities related to the Codex

Alimentarius and expects increased educational and technical outreach to other nations in support of U.S. trade and food safety positions.

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 estimates 2002 budget

request

Committee recommendation

Federal food inspection ............................................... 595,507 608,730 608,730

Import/export inspection .............................................. 11,111 12,127 12,127

Laboratory services ...................................................... 31,348 36,548 36,548

Field automation ......................................................... 8,005 8,005 8,005

Grants to States .......................................................... 41,642 42,517 42,517

Special assistance for State programs ...................... 5,220 5,220 5,220

Codex Alimentarius ...................................................... 2,338 2,395 2,600

Total ............................................................... 695,171 715,542 715,747

Food safety inspection:

Federal ................................................................ 620,271 638,513 638,513

State ................................................................... 46,444 47,418 47,418

International ....................................................... 14,246 15,344 15,344

Codex ........................................................................... 2,338 2,395 2,600

FAIM ............................................................................. 11,872 11,872 11,872

Total ............................................................... 695,171 715,542 715,747

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $588,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 606,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 606,000

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
70

international affairs (except for foreign economics development)

and commodity programs. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency, including the

Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk Management Agency, and the

Foreign Agricultural Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$606,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

With respect to claims for losses regarding sugar beets grown for

the 2000 crop year, the Committee expects that processing and

payment of such claims shall be governed by the terms of the sugar

beet policy as interpreted by the Risk Management Agency in its

Bulletin No.: MGR–01–010, issued March 2, 2001 and losses calculated under section 13(e) of the sugar beet policy without regard

to whether the sugar beets were processed or unprocessed.

In making emergency financial assistance available under section

815 of Public Law 106–387, with respect to sugar beets grown for

the 2000 crop year, and notwithstanding any different procedure

used to calculate indemnities under Federal crop insurance policies, the Committee expects the Secretary to include as the amount

of quality loss the difference between the per-unit payment that

the producer would have received from the Cooperative for processed and unprocessed sugar beets affected by the quality loss if

the crop had not suffered the quality loss, and the per-unit payment that the producer did receive from the Cooperative for the

processed and unprocessed beets affected by the quality loss.

During fiscal year 2001, funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation were provided for implementation of an International

School Lunch Program. The Committee notes the benefits such program serves to relieve hunger throughout the world, promote civil

society, and also provide an outlet for U.S. food production. The

Committee encourages the Department to continue these activities

in fiscal year 2002 and to work with the appropriate authorization

committees to establish this program under law.

The Committee is concerned that allocation of section 416 funds

for humanitarian assistance programs may disadvantage certain

private voluntary organizations in regard to the amount of those

funds allowable for administrative costs. The Committee requests

the Secretary to evaluate the Department’s policy regarding allowable administrative costs for distribution of commodities under section 416 for humanitarian purposes and report to the Committees

on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2002. In

addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work

with representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified dry

milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.

The Committee urges USAID and USDA to manage the Food Security Commodity Reserve effectively to meet international food aid

commitments of the United States, including supplementing Public

Law 480 title II funds to meet emergency food needs.
71

In recent years, USDA has used its authority under the CCC

Charter Act of 1948 to purchase wheat and other surplus commodities for distribution as international humanitarian assistance

under Section 416(b). This has benefitted American farmers while

also helping to alleviate world hunger. Low commodity prices and

global hunger will likely continue in the coming year. The Committee urges USDA to use its existing authority to purchase no less

than 4,000,000 tons of surplus commodities in fiscal year 2002 for

donation as international food aid, including the Global Food for

Education Initiative. The program should be approved by December

31, 2001 so that there is sufficient time to ensure that purchases

and donations are made in an orderly manner. The program should

be fully coordinated with humanitarian and development projects

managed by private voluntary organizations, cooperatives and

international organizations.

U.S. Government-funded donation programs for rice, such as

Public Law 480 program and other commodity programs administered by USDA, have been traditionally reserved for value-added

rice. Nearly half the U.S. rice crop is exported each year and value

added rice represents two-thirds of total exports. This substantial

demand for value-added rice has helped enhance farm prices, keeps

U.S. rice mills in operation, which in turn, helped related rural

businesses, providing jobs and benefitting local economies.

Commercially, the U.S. rough rice market is healthy and growing. Rough rice exports are already over 1,000,000 metric tons this

year, up 12 percent from this time last year. Meanwhile, U.S.

value-added exports are shrinking and are at their lowest levels in

15 years. If unprocessed rice displaces value-added rice for food aid,

the U.S. industry would not only suffer immediate economic loss,

it would also undermine the long-term viability of the industry by

providing opportunities to foreign competitors. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges the Department to continue its focus of utilizing value-added rice in U.S. government-funded food aid programs.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 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 commodity

price support and production adjustment programs financed by the

Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], and several other

cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and operating, and emergency

disaster and other loan programs.

Agricultural market transition program.—The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104–127

(1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary offer

individuals with eligible cropland acreage the opportunity for a

one-time signup in a 7-year, production flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant’s prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well as total program participation, each
72

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. However, with respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary

must allow repayment of marketing loans at the adjusted world

price. And, specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the

lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest, or the

adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness provisions are

unchanged.

The 1996 act also provides for a loan program for sugar for the

1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane. The Fiscal

Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act eliminated the recourse

feature. The 1996 act provides for a milk price support program,

whereby the price 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 milk price support program is extended through December 31, 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 1 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 1 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 (MLG’s) and loan deficiency payments (LDP’s) for all commodities that was in effect for

the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues through the 2002 crop

year. Similarly, the three-entity rule is continued.

For combined MLG’s plus LDP’s received for the 1999 and 2000

crops, the payment limit was increased to $150,000 per person in
73

separate pieces of legislation. Moreover, Congress enacted discretionary authority in 1999 for the Secretary of Agriculture to offer

commodity certificate exchanges for loan repayment purposes. Indirect gains received by producers due to a certificate exchange are

not subject to the MLG and LDP payment limitation.

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 are

utilized in the administration of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the Agency is also Executive Vice

President of the Corporation.

The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address highpriority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. The

Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of the

programs financed through CCC.

Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.—Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities are conducted pursuant to 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.—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.

Risk management.—FSA administers 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

Appropriations Transfers from

program accounts

Total, FSA,

salaries and

expenses

Appropriations, 2001 ....................................... $826,563 ($266,132) 1 ($1,092,695)

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................... 939,030 (274,357) (1,213,387)

Committee recommendation ............................ 939,030 (274,357) (1,213,387)

1 Excludes $49,890,000 in emergency and disaster assistance provided by Public Law 106–387.

The account ‘‘Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,’’

funds the administrative expenses of program administration and

other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Public

Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The

consolidation provides clarity and better management and control

of funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
74

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], including funds transferred from other program accounts, the Committee recommends $1,213,387,000. This is $120,692,000 more than

the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.

The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under to

downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised about

the criteria being used for further staff reductions and the potential

impact these reductions will have on farm services in all States.

Until these concerns have been addressed, States in compliance

with the original Espy reorganization plan should not be required

to undertake further staff reductions.

The Committee is concerned that FSA should allocate more staff

resources to the farm loan programs in both the field and in the

St. Louis Information Technology and Finance Center. Without

more farm loan staff in the field, FSA cannot adequately perform

the supervised credit functions which ensure the success of the program, including but not limited to such functions as real estate appraisals, chattel appraisals, and year-end farm analysis. The Committee directs the Department to report on the numbers of staff positions, by type and location, and to provide a detailed explanation

by object class, of funds obligated from the Salaries & Expenses Account, to support the farm loan programs by April 1, 2002.

The Committee supports farmer participation in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) as a means to coordinate conservation and producer objectives of natural resource stewardship. The Committee encourages the Department, acting

through the Farm Service Agency, to improve outreach and technical assistance for CREP in States where enrollment and participation is not commensurate with enrollment expectations.

In addition, the Committee notes the difficulty of States with

high land values competing for enrollment in CREP. The Committee urges the agency to evaluate the conservation of benefits of

CREP enrollment in all States and not give undue consideration to

enrollment opportunities based on land values or rental rates.

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $2,993,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,993,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,993,000

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 the Farm Service Agency [FSA]. Grants will be solely for oper-
75

ation and administration of the State’s agricultural mediation program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,993,000 for State mediation

grants. This is $1,000,000 more than the 2001 level and the budget

request.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $450,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 100,000

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

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who,

through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market

due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends

$100,000. This is $350,000 less than the 2001 level and the same

as the budget request.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is

used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and

emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types of

loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe

land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an agreement by the

Government to purchase the loan after a specified initial period.

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of

Agriculture.

The following programs are financed through this fund:

Farm ownership loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct loans and $731,000

for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40 years or less.

Farm operating loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. Total indebtedness to

FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct loans and $731,000 for

guaranteed loans. The term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.

Emergency disaster loans.—Made available in designated areas

(counties) and in contiguous counties where property damage and/
76

or severe production losses have occurred as a direct result of a

natural disaster. Areas may be declared by the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.

Credit sales of acquired property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA loans.

Indian tribe land acquisition loans.—Made to any Indian tribe

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act 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.

Boll weevil eradication loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of

$3,891,000,000. This is $800,479,000 more than the 2001 level and

$35,695,000 more than the budget request.

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and the

budget request levels:

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 enacted 2002 budget Committee recommendation

Farm ownership:

Direct 1 ................................................................ (127,722) (128,000) (147,000)

Guaranteed 2 ....................................................... (868,086) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)

Farm operating:

Direct 3 ................................................................ (522,891) (600,000) (611,000)

Guaranteed unsubsidized 4 ................................. (1,075,468) (1,500,000) (1,500,000)

Guaranteed subsidized 5 ..................................... (369,100) (500,000) (506,000)

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................... (2,002) (2,000) (2,000)

Emergency disaster 6 ................................................... (24,947) (25,000) (25,000)

Boll weevil eradication loans ...................................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)

Total, farm loans ........................................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,891,000)

1 Excludes estimated $2,800,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113. 2 Excludes estimated $141,420,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113. 3 Excludes estimated $176,115,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113. 4 Excludes estimated $311,332,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113. 5 Excludes estimated $104,246,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113. 6 Excludes estimated $273,569,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by

Public Law 106–113.
77

LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Subsidies Administrative expenses

Insured

loan 1

Guaranteed

loan 2 Total Appropriations

Transfer to

FSA Total ACIF

Appropriations, 2001 .................... 67,449 89,283 116,732 4,130 264,731 385,592

Budget estimate, 2002 ................ 60,427 124,950 185,377 8,000 272,595 465,972

Committee recommendation ......... 60,427 124,950 185,377 8,000 272,595 465,972

1 Excludes estimated $83,294,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106–113. 2 Excludes estimated $13,493,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106–113.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and

loan guarantees committed, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the cost of loan programs under credit reform:

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 enacted 2002 budget Committee recommendation

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership:

Direct 1 ............................................................. 13,756 3,366 3,866

Guaranteed 2 .................................................... 4,427 4,500 4,500

Farm operating:

Direct 3 ............................................................. 47,251 53,580 54,580

Guaranteed unsubsidized 4 .............................. 14,738 52,650 52,650

Guaranteed subsidized 5 .................................. 30,119 67,800 68,550

Indian tribe land acquisition ................................... 322 118 118

Emergency disaster 6 ................................................ 6,120 3,363 3,363

Boll weevil eradication loans 7 ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

Total, loan subsidies ....................................... 116,733 185,377 187,627

ACIF expenses .................................................................... 268,861 280,595 280,595

1 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $302,000 (Public Law 106–113). 2 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $721,000 (Public Law 106–113). 3 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $15,886,000 (Public Law 106–113). 4 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $4,265,000 (Public Law 106–113). 5 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $8,507,000 (Public Law 106–113). 6 Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $67,107,000 (Public Law 106–113). 7 No cost since subsidy rate is negative.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $65,453,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 74,752,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,752,000

Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR]

Act of 1996, risk management activities previously performed by

the Farm Service Agency will be performed by the new Risk Management Agency.

Risk management includes program activities in support of the

Federal Crop Insurance Program as authorized by the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganiza-
78

tion Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act. Functional areas of risk management 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$74,752,000. This is $9,299,000 more than the 2001 level and the

same as the budget request.

CORPORATIONS

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform 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 $100 per crop per policy.

At least catastrophic [CAT] coverage was required for producers

who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain

other farm programs. Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement

and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are offered the option of

waiving their eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance instead

of obtaining CAT coverage to meet program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not include emergency loans or payment

under the Noninsured Assistance Program [NAP]. Beginning with

the 1997 crop, the Secretary began phasing out delivery of CAT

coverage through the FSA offices, and in 1998 designated the private insurance providers as the sole source provider of CAT coverage.

The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may obtain from

private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy is equivalent

to the amount of premium established for catastrophic risk protection coverage for coverage up to 65 percent level 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 yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected market price.

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 implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management, under the FAIR Act of

1996, the NAP program will remain with the Farm Service Agency

and be incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.
79

The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) amended

the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable

risk management tools and improved protection from production

and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and integrity of the

Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows for the improvement

of basic crop insurance products by implementing higher premium

subsidies to make buy-up coverage more affordable for producers;

make adjustments in actual production history guarantees; and revise the administrative fees for catastrophic (CAT) coverage. More

crops and commodities will become insurable through pilot programs effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an investment for over $8.2 billion in five years to further improve Federal crop insurance.

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $2,804,660,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 3,037,000,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 3,037,000,000

1Such sums as may be necessary are provided; excludes $12,971,000 in emergency and disaster assistance provided by Public Law 106–387. 2 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended, are

provided.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,

delivery expenses, program-related research and development,

startup costs for implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot

projects, data processing improvements, public outreach, and related tasks and functions.

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,

estimated to be $3,037,000,000. This is $232,340,000 more than the

current fiscal year 2001 estimate and the same as the budget request.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products,

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15

U.S.C. 714).

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling,

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include sta-
80

bilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities;

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve

Program contracts.

Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act;

the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104–127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996; the Agricultural

Act of 1949 (1949 act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938

(1938 act); and the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 act).

The 1996 act requires that the following programs be offered for

the 1996 through 2002 crops: 7-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 milk price support program is extended

through December 31, 2001.

The 7-year production flexibility contracts were offered to eligible

landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 1996, with some

contracts being available in subsequent years for eligible contractcommodity acreage in the CRP program that, prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the contract expires. Statutorily

established fixed dollar amounts are to be distributed annually

among contract participants according to statutory formulas. With

the exception of limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract

acreage must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract participants must comply with applicable land conservation

and wetland protection requirements.

Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of such commodities

are contract participants. Marketing loan provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all such commodities except ELS

cotton.

The peanut loan program as provided by the 1996 act is accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the 1938 act.

The loan rate for quota peanuts is set at $610 per ton for each of

the crop years, 1996 through 2002. The quota poundage floor (1.35

million tons in 1995) authorized by the 1938 act for 1995 is eliminated for the 1996 through 2002 crops. The 1996 act also amends

the peanut provisions of the 1938 act pertaining to undermarketings of farm quotas and transfers of quotas across county lines.

The 1996 act created a recourse loan program for sugar that reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if the

tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million short tons

(raw value) in any fiscal year, 1997–2002. The 1996 act suspends
81

marketing allotment provisions in the 1938 act and implements a

1-cent-per-pound penalty if cane sugar pledged as collateral for a

Corporation loan is forfeited. A similar penalty applies to beet

sugar.

The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 act is supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by the

1938 act. The tobacco program provisions in both acts were not affected by the 1996 act.

Milk prices are supported each year through the end of calendar

year 1999 at statutorily established levels through purchases of

butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar year 1996 support level was $10.35 per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67

percent butterfat, and the rate declines annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999. Public Law 106–78 extended

the milk price support program through December 31, 2000, at the

$9.90 support level. The 2001 appropriations act extended the milk

price support program to December 31, 2001, at the $9.90 per hundredweight support level.

The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after October

1, 1996, will be 1 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 1 percentage point higher than CCC’s cost of money for that

month. Moreover, the Corporation’s use of funds for purchases of

information technology equipment, including computers, is more restricted than it was prior to enactment of the 1996 act.

The 1996 act amends the 1985 act to establish the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program [ECARP], which

encompasses the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], the Wetland Reserve Program [WRP], and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP]. Each of these programs is funded

through the Corporation.

The CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4 million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary is to allow

participants to terminate any CRP contract entered into prior to

January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided the contract has

been in effect for at least 5 years. The Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future early outs and future sign-ups

of lands that meet enrollment eligibility criteria.

WRP is reauthorized through the year 2002, not to exceed

975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996, onethird of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements, onethird in 30-year easements or less, and one-third in wetland restoration agreements with cost sharing; 75,000 acres of land in less

than permanent easements must be placed in the program before

any additional permanent easements are placed.

A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established to assist crop and livestock producers deal with environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. The 1996 act authorizes program funding of $200,000,000 annually for fiscal years 1997

through 2002. One-half of the available funds are for addressing

conservation problems associated with livestock operations and

one-half for other conservation concerns. Five- to ten-year con-
82

tracts, based on a conservation plan will be used to implement the

program.

The 1996 act also authorizes other new Corporation-funded conservation programs, including the conservation farm option, flood

risk reduction contracts, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,

and the Farmland Protection Program.

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors,

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of

Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and chairman of the

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their positions in the Department

of Agriculture.

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees.

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager,

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities.

The Corporation’s capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by the

United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may be

borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending agencies,

and from others at any one time. The Corporation reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to purchase at any time all

notes and other obligations evidencing loans made by such agencies

and others. All bonds, notes, debentures, and similar obligations

issued by the Corporation are subject to approval by the Secretary

of the Treasury.

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the

Corporation for net realized losses.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $25,264,441,000

Budget estimate, 2002 1 ......................................................................... 23,116,000,000

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 23,116,000,000

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC) for net realized losses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, estimated in the budget

to be $23,116,000,000. This is $2,148,441,000 less than the current

estimated level and the same as the budget request.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2001 ..................................................................................... ($5,000,000)

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... (5,000,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (5,000,000)
83

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management of CCC

hazardous waste are paid from USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation. The CCC funds operations and maintenance

costs only.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Commodity Credit Corporation operations and maintenance

for hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. This amount is the same as the 2001 level and

the budget request.
(84)

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $709,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 730,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 730,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out the

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural resources and

the environment. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

the Forest Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$730,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation Service as

well as five natural resource conservation cost-share programs previously administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this Service, together with

the agricultural conservation programs and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been a major factor in reducing

pollution. The Natural Resources Conservation Service works with

conservation districts, watershed groups, and the Federal and

State agencies having related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis,

and reduce damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with

its dams, debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical

advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and, through

these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize pollution than

any other activity. These programs and water sewage systems in

rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the areas of greatest

damage, the rivers and harbors near our cities.

The conservation activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and objectives as set forth

in the National Conservation Program [NCP] which was prepared

in response to the provisions of the Soil and Water Resources Con-
85

servation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public Law 95–192). The long-term

objectives of the program are designed to maintain and improve the

soil, water, and related resources of the Nation’s nonpublic lands

by: reducing excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,

improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,

improving range condition, and improving water quality.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $712,545,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 773,454,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 802,454,000

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include:

Conservation technical assistance.—Provides assistance to district

cooperators and other land users in the planning and application

of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the

quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and conserve water,

enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and reduce upstream flooding;

all to protect and enhance the natural resource base.

Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related resource data for land conservation, use, and development; guidance

of community development; identification of prime agricultural producing areas that should be protected; environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall respond to the

Nation’s long-term needs.

Soil surveys.—Inventories the Nation’s basic soil resources and

determines land capabilities and conservation treatment needs.

Soil survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, State, and local organizations.

Snow survey and water forecasting.—Provides estimates of annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and relates

to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future

water supplies.

Plant materials centers.—Assembles, tests, and encourages increased use of plant species which show promise for use in the

treatment of conservation problem areas.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $802,454,000. This amount is $89,909,000 more than

the 2001 level and $29,000,000 more than the budget request.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends funding increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made available to States.
86

Projects identified in Senate Report 106–288 and Conference Report 106–948 that were directed to be funded by the Committee for

fiscal year 2001 are not funded for fiscal year 2002, unless specifically mentioned herein.

The Committee is aware of the severe water problems occurring

in the State of Georgia, especially in the Flint River watershed in

Southwest Georgia and the coastal watershed in Southeast Georgia. Surface and ground water are being severely depleted by

drought and further exacerbated by salt water intrusion into coastal agriculture areas. The Committee provides $1,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002 funding for the Georgia Agricultural Water Conservation

Initiative.

The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national priority

area pilot program under the guidelines of the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in the delta of the State of Mississippi.

The Committee provides $800,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a study

to characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-site impacts,

and develop strategies to facilitate land use change while preserving critical natural resources. The agency is directed to work

in cooperation with Clemson University in conducting this study.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

expand the cooperative efforts with the Claude E. Phillips Herbarium, Delaware.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

maintain a partnership between USDA and the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation.

The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue work on the

Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion sediment control.

The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level for the grazing lands conservation assistance

program, of which no less than $250,000 shall be for grazing land

conservation activities in Wisconsin.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

the National Water Management Center in Arkansas.

The Comittee provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat to

pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of alien

weed pests into Hawaii. The Committee directs the agency to work

with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Animal Plant

and Health Inspection Service to develop an integrated approach,

including environmentally-safe biological controls, for eradicating

these pests.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

obtain and evaluate materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52 degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated

regions in the Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South

Latitude). The Committee directs the agency to continue working

in conjunction with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.

The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the Oregon Garden, Silverton, OR.
87

The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level of

funding for plant material centers and continued development of

warm season grasses for use in the Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Initiatives Program (WHIP). The Committee encourages the agency to provide $300,000 to

support the emerging alternative technology to reduce phosphorous

loading into Lake Champlain.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding to

continue support of agricultural development and resource conservation on the Island of Molokai and the transition from smallscale conservation projects to those that benefit the community

through sustainable economic impact.

The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for

the Kenai streambank restoration water project for fiscal year

2002.

The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach effort

so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural resources.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program. Sound economic

grazing systems, marketing strategies, and uniformity of production quality will ensure the competitiveness of livestock operations

and help maintain small farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

technical assistance for Franklin County Lake, Mississippi.

The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

two additional offices in Bethel and Nome in order for NRCS to

have a presence in western Alaska and includes $350,000 for new

offices in Juneau and Glennallen in fiscal year 2002. Also, the

Committee provides an additional $650,000 for funding necessary

to support at least one staff position for each soil and water conservation district, a public information program, and assistance in

rural Alaska.

The Committee provides $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to complete the Squirrel Branch Drainage Project, Mississippi.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

agroforestry efforts in conjunction with the National Agroforestry

Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Committee continues funding for the implementation of the

Delta Study at the fiscal year 2001 level. Local sponsors are to

work cooperatively with the NRCS so that water conservation,

water supply evaluations, and environmental planning can proceed.

The Committee directs the agency to proceed with Phase II of the

Kuhn Bay Project (Point Remove), Arkansas.

The Committee directs the agency to work with soil scientists at

regional land-grant universities to continue the pilot project in

Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties, Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and taxonomic characteristics of

Sharkey soils.

The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level to address the erosion in the Loess Hills area in

western Iowa. The Committee is aware that the Eastern Red Cedar

and other invasive species of woody plants are having a very nega-
88

tive effect on prairies in the Loess Hills, a unique soil important

to many rare animals and plants. The Committee encourages the

Department to support efforts to reduce this problem.

The Committee provides $160,000 for fiscal year 2002 to conduct

nitrogen soil tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve

farmers’ economic returns and minimize potential water quality

conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from manure and fertilizers on West Virginia’s cropland.

The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for the Delta Conservation Demonstration

Center, Washington County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $200,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the

Idaho One-Plan, a test of the prototype Conservation Planning

Module in the field with farmers and ranchers in Canyon County,

Idaho.

The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion of

the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to include

Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia University and

the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, to identify and

characterize phosphorous movement in soils to determine appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the management of

phosphorous. This information is critical in helping Appalachian

farmers deal with nutrient loading issues and in protecting the

Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from depletion of life-sustaining

oxygen.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

evaluating and increasing native plant materials in Alaska.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 funding level for

technical assistance for the Seward/Resurrection River watershed

project, Alaska.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level of funding for the continued development of a geographic information system (GIS)-based model in South Carolina to

integrate commodity and conservation program data at the field

level for watershed analysis purposes.

The Committee provides $8,515,000 for Snow Survey and Water

Supply Forecasting and activities related to SNOwpack TELemetry

(SNOTEL). This level is $2,538,000 more than the amount provided

in fiscal year 2001 and $2,378,000 above the budget request.

The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2002 to improve

drainage along Lyon Creek in Taylorsville, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $750,000 for a feasibility study on the

Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure Delivery

System in Idaho.

The Committee provides $400,000 for the Backyard Conservation

Program as part of the National Cooperative Soil Program. This

funding is to be used to provide technical assistance on grazing

lands and backyard containment of water runoff in order to improve nutrient management and protect water resources in the

Lake Tahoe Basin.
89

The Committee provides no less than $250,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 level for technical assistance related to the BaratariaTerrebone National Estuary Program. This program will assist in

the reduction of non-point source pollution affecting water quality

in the Gulf of Mexico and the lessening of the causes of hypoxia.

Landowners in this area are encouraged to make application under

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to obtain financial

assistance necessary to carry out this program.

The Committee provides $750,000 for planning, design, and technical assistance associated with the Little Red River Irrigation

Project in Arkansas.

Recurring floods along the Red River in recent years have resulted in tremendous loss of property and have endangered residents throughout the basin. A number of methods, such as enhanced water storage capacity, more efficient drainage, and shifts

in agricultural land use, may be employed to retard the flow of

flood waters and reduce downstream flooding. It is important that

these improvements be pursued in a manner beneficial to agriculture and result in minimal loss of productive farm land. Accordingly, the Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Red River Basin

Flood Prevention Project in North Dakota in cooperation with the

Energy and Environmental Research Center.

The Committee provides $2,000,000 to provide technical assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control Cost-Share Program,

and an additional $700,000 to accelerate the Kentucky Soil Survey

Program. The Committee also encourages the NRCS to enter into

cooperative agreements with Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts

to further the partnerships among these organizations.

The Committee is aware of growing demands on natural resources in New York State resulting from increased development

and urban sprawl. The Committee provides $230,000 for use

through a cooperative agreement with Pace University to promote

sustainable growth and protection of soil and water resources.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the Central Alabama/Birmingham Water Quality and Conservation Initiative. In addition,

the Committee provides $400,000 for the Alabama Gulf Coast

Water Quality and Conservation Initiative.

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for conservation activities in

Wisconsin in cooperation with the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

The Committee provides $580,000 for fiscal year 2002 for study,

planning and design to implement floodwater retarding structures

in the Town Creek Watershed, Carthage, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for cattle

and nutrient management in stream crossings in cooperation with

Mississippi conservation districts.

The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to provide

bank stabilization structures in the Strayhorn Creek Watershed,

Mississippi.

The Committee provides $300,000 to implement the Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture (CEMSA) in cooperation with the Iowa Soybean Association. CEMSA will be designed to assist producers to voluntarily adopt certifiable conservation plans and is expected to be implemented over a 3-year period
90

at a total cost of $1,000,000, with additional funds to be provided

from non-Federal sources.

The Committee provides $250,000 for planning and design associated with the Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, Arkansas. The Committee provides $350,000 for advanced wetland plant research at Silverton, Oregon, to plant and study optimal species for

conserving water, reducing soil runoff, and removing toxins. In addition, the Committee is aware of needs for additional technical assistance in Oregon and other States and encourages the Secretary

to examine the distribution of funds among States in correlation

with overall conservation needs.

The Committee directs the NRCS to develop a plan to establish

a Geographic Information Systems Center of Excellence in cooperation with West Virginia University that will provide expertise to

design, field, and support new applications for capturing, managing, analyzing, and delivering soil survey information in an easily accessible manner.

The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed

management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the

National Pork Producers Council.

The Committee provides $350,000 for fiscal year 2002 for flood

control in the Pearl River Basin, Dry Creek watershed in Marion

County, Mississippi. The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2002 to install

grade stabilization structures in the Skuna River, Mississippi. The Committee provides $175,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a cooperative agreement between NRCS and Alcorn State University to

analyze soil erosion and water quality by using demonstration

sites.

The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the Wildlife Management Institute for developing and transferring fish and wildlife technology to States and

field offices.

The Committee provides $750,000 to assist in the conversion to

sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, Idaho, in order to

reduce water quality impairments resulting from the return of

water runoff to the aquifer by way of agricultural drain wells.

The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2002 to survey

the Chickasaway River in Quitman, Mississippi, to provide planning and design for de-snagging and debris removal.

The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2002 to perform

a feasibility study for a surface impoundment in Choctaw County,

Mississippi.

The Committee provides $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to finish

installing the remaining channel work on Coonewah Creek in Lee

County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the 2001

fiscal year level for the continuation of the Delta Conservation

Demonstration Center, Washington County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a

channel modification to the Mill Creek Watershed in the City of

Magee, MS, to prevent further flooding.

The Committee is aware of the additional demands for conservation technical assistance resulting from the New Jersey State Con-
91

servation Cost Share Program and urges the agency to provide additional assistance in cooperation with that program. The Committee provides a total of $600,000 for conservation programs related to cranberry production in the States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the Upper Petit Jean Watershed Project, Arkansas.

The Committee expects the National Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS) to continue to support the work of the Southwest

Strategy and its coordinated effort to help address the natural resource, cultural resource, and economic issues facing the people of

New Mexico and Arizona.

From within the available funds for the Alaska State Office, the

Committee directs the Service to work with Harding Lake Association to study the Harding Lake Watershed.

Plant Materials Centers.—The Committee provides $200,000, the same level available in fiscal year 2001 and $100,000 above the

budget request, to improve the Hawaii Plant Materials Center’s capability to propagate native plants in support of the Federal cleanup on the Island of Kahoolawe and to facilitate start-up of native

plant nurseries.

The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 level for the Golden Meadow Plant Materials Center for

necessary facility improvements and to support ongoing work in

the areas of coastal wetland plant species and coastal prairie plant

restoration.

The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to make

improvements to the existing building and facilities at the Jamie

Whitten Plant Materials Center.

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $10,844,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,960,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,960,000

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 Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006–1009). A separate appropriation 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 for 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
92

the basis for installing works of improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department in 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,960,000. This amount is

$116,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the

budget request.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $99,224,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 100,413,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,413,000

1 Excludes $109,758,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–387.

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law

566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States and

their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and

streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization,

and disposal of water.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility for administration of activities, which include cooperation

with local sponsors, State, and other public agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works of improvement for flood prevention, including the development of recreational facilities and the

improvement of fish and wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help finance the local share of the cost of carrying out

planned watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For watershed and flood prevention operations, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of $100,413,000. This amount is

$1,189,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the

budget request.

The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for

the Little Sioux Watershed and Mosquito Creek Watershed

projects, Iowa.

The Committee encourages the agency to provide assistance

within available funds for erosion control along the Tanana River
93

bordering the Big Delta State Historical Park; and the Matanuska

River, Alaska.

Access to a consistent source of potable water became even more

difficult for West Virginia families and farmers during the drought

of 1999. While existing flood impoundments protect these people

during floods, these impoundments do not include a water storage

component that would allow the impoundment to serve a dual role.

The Committee directs the NRCS in West Virginia to work toward

redesign of its existing flood impoundments to include water storage as an additional function.

The Committee encourages the agency to support the increased

demands for project completions dedicated to increasing water storage capacity, improving the efficiency of delivery systems, and conserving water through flood control projects, Hawaii.

The Committee recognizes the importance of building the Lost

River Watershed Dam Number 10, West Virginia, and encourages

the funding for the award of the construction contract for this

project.

The Committee urges the agency to proceed with the implementation of the watershed plans for the Deckers Creek Watershed

Acid Mine Drainage Remediation and Land Mine Treatment

project, the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Watershed

project, and the Knapps Creek Stream Restoration Watershed

project, West Virginia.

The Committee continues to be aware of flooding in the Devils

Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen in

each of the past 6 years. The lake is now more than 25 feet higher

than it was in 1993. The Committee encourages the agency, with

the cooperation of the Farm Service Agency, to assist in the locally

coordinated flood response and water management activities.

NRCS and FSA should continue to utilize conservation programs in

providing water holding and storage areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in watershed management.

The Committee urges NRCS to proceed with construction of

Phase II of the watershed flood control project in the vicinity of

Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

The Committee urges the NRCS to assist dairy farmers with the

installation or renovation of waste management features to protect

water quality levels in Lake Pontchartrain and the Middle

Tangipahoa Watershed, Louisiana.

The Committee provides funds and expects NRCS to provide assistance for projects in the Embarras River Basin, Lake County

Watershed, and DuPage County, Illinois.

The Committee provides funds for continuing work by the NRCS

for the Muenster Watershed, Texas.

The Committee supports work by the NRCS to assist the town

of Swan Quarter, North Carolina, to provide protection from flooding from area farm lands.

The Committee provides funds for continuing work in connection

with the East Fork of the Grand River, Twelve Mile Creek, Twin

Ponies, Troublesome Creek, West Fork of the Big Creek, Soap

Creek parts 10 and 11, Mill Creek and Little River projects all located in Iowa.
94

The Committee encourages the agency to provide assistance for

the Small Watershed Program for the Environmental Assessment

and design phase of the Pocasset River watershed plan, Rhode Island.

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ...........................

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

The Committee recommends a new watershed rehabilitation program account for technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14

of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved

August 4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313

of Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee recommends $10,000,000. This amount is $10,000,000 more than the

fiscal year 2001 level and the budget request.

The Committee is aware of the need for the rehabilitation of

structures located in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi,

Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $41,923,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 43,048,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,048,000

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For resource conservation and development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,048,000. This amount is

$6,125,000 more than the 2001 level and $5,000,000 more than the

budget request. This increase is intended to provide additional support for existing resource conservation and development councils

and to allow for consideration of newly authorized areas in states.

FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $6,311,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,811,000
95

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. This program is carried out by providing technical assistance and long-term cost-sharing agreements with private landowners.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Forestry Incentives Program, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,811,000. This amount is

$1,500,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and $7,811,000 more

than the budget request.

The Committee notes authorization under the Forestry Incentives Program for removal and site preparation for replanting on

private lands which may serve to reduce the potential of wildfires

and directs the agency, where appropriate, to provide resources for

that purpose.
(96)

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State, district, and county offices.

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 assistance program throughout all

America providing loans and grants for single-family, multi-family

housing, and special housing needs, a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business development programs.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $604,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 623,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 623,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted

by the Congress with respect to the Department’s rural economic

and community development activities. The Office has oversight

and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service,

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the

Committee recommends an appropriation of $623,000. This amount

is $19,000 more than the 2001 level and the same as the budget

request.

The Committee is aware the Department has previously provided

funding for the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP).

The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development Councils,

provide technical support and guidance for rural development at

the State and local level. The Committee encourages the Department to continue support for this important organization from

within available funds.

The Committee is aware of a proposal for a Rural Economic Area

Partnership (REAP) Zone designation for 17 southern Illinois coun-
97

ties. The proposal was drafted by a coalition of regional planning

and development organizations in Southern Illinois. The Committee encourages the Department to give the proposal serious review and to provide appropriate funding and technical assistance.

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $760,864,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 692,125,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,004,125,000

1 Excludes $199,560,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law

106–387.

The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

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 provides greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

With the exception of the 10 percent in the ‘‘National office reserve’’ account, funding is 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 to 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), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities,

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share con-
98

tribution 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

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 sections

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 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
99

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay

development costs.

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.

Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of water

resources and for improving the planning and management of solid

waste disposal facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the

Committee recommends $1,004,125,000. This amount is

$243,261,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 level and $312,000,000

more than the budget request.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,

as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 appropriation 2002 budget

request

Community:

Community facility direct loan subsidies .... 29,161 13,545 13,945

Community facility grants ............................ 13,000 12,958 14,958

Economic impact initiative grants ............... 49,890 ............................ 25,000

High energy costs grants ............................. 29,934 ............................ 30,000

Subtotal, community ................................ 121,985 26,503 83,903

Business:

Business and industry loan subsidies:

Direct ................................................... 2,904 ............................ ............................

Guaranteed .......................................... 13,354 27,400 28,400

Rural business enterprise grants ................ 45,564 40,575 46,575

Rural business opportunity grants .............. 2,993 2,993 2,993

Subtotal, business ................................... 64,815 70,968 77,968

Utilities:

Water and waste disposal loan subsidies:

Direct ........................................................ 109,953 55,664 96,840

Water and waste disposal grants ................ 529,498 529,498 741,422

Solid waste management grants ................. 3,492 3,492 3,992

Subtotal, utilities ..................................... 642,942 588,654 842,254

Total, loan subsidies and grants ............ 1 760,864 692,125 1,004,125

1 Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–387.

Rural Community Advancement Program.—The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for transportation technical assistance.
100

The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural

Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.

The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for loans

and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American

Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American Indian and

Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance initiative.

Community facility grants.—The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to applications relating to community facilities for structural needs of the following:

the Vermont Foodbank; the Kawarek Washeteria, Alaska;

Jessieville Fire Department, Arkansas; Rural Primary Care and

Health Service Research Center, South Dakota; medical facility

technology infrastructure, South Dakota; pavilion facility improvements, Jackson Parish, Louisiana; the Southern Plains Conference

Center, Oklahoma; Blairstown Police Department, New Jersey; the

Rural Boys and Girls Clubs of Alaska; and Warren County, Mississippi.

Economic impact initiative grants.—The Committee includes bill

language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme unemployment or severe

economic depression.

The Committee expects the Department to focus on grants that

would create new jobs in the telecommunications sector by making

the Internet available in rural communities without such service.

Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department to favorably consider a grant application from the Alaska Rural Communications Service (ARCS) to provide basic Internet service to underserved Alaska communities and to provide basic television service

to communities in Alaska with one or fewer television stations.

High energy cost grants.—The Committee includes bill language

to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy costs which is to

be administered by the Rural Utilities Service.

Business and Industry Loan Program.—The Committee encourages the Department to give consideration to applications for rural

business opportunity grants (RBOG) from the following: grants relating to the Cornerstone Project in Vermont; Agrilink Foods, Wisconsin; Idaho Rural Economic Development Initiative; and the City

of Sand Point, Alaska.

Rural business enterprise grants.—The Committee is also aware

of and encourages the Department to give consideration to applications for rural business enterprise grants (RBEG) from the following: the Grants to Broadcasting Program; Vermont Maple Industry Council; Women in Technology Project, Hawaii; Alaska cultural and ecotourism web site, construction of the Gateway Forest

Products Dock, Alaska; Central Kentucky Grower’s Association;

Eastern Kentucky Superior Livestock Marketing Initiative; Port

District of Brookings Harbor, Oregon; Value-Added Export Center,

Arkansas; South Carolina Rural Development Fund; South Dakota

Department of Agriculture Value-Added Finance Authority; Rural

Economic Development Through Tourism (REDTT); Alsea Port and

the Fire District Cooperative, Oregon.
101

The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the system by which applications for rural business enterprise grants are

considered does not discriminate against applications which may

benefit multiple States.

Water and waste disposal loans and grants.—The Committee is

aware of and encourages the Department to consider applications

for water and waste disposal loans and grants relating to the following projects: the town of Colby, Wisconsin; the City of

Dillingham, Alaska; City of Aberdeen, and the Shoshone-Bannock

Drinking Water System, Idaho; and, the counties of Florence, Richland, and York, South Carolina.

The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up to $24,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems for rural and native villages in Alaska; $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal

systems for the colonias along the United States-Mexico border;

and $16,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems for Federally

Recognized Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee

makes up to $9,850,000 available for the circuit rider program of

which the $350,000 increase from fiscal year 2001 shall be provided

to those States that have the most water and waste disposal systems. These States have the most need for a third circuit rider program due to the demand for assistance to these many systems.

Water and waste technical assistance training grants.—The Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to consider a grant

request from the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse, for

which an increase in this program is provided; and the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide rural Alaska natives statewide

training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.

Solid Waste Management Grants.—The Committee is aware of

and encourages the Department to consider an application from

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska, for a landfill/solid waste disposal project.

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established

review process.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year—

Committee rec2001 appropria- ommendation

tion

2002 budget

request

Appropriations ............................................................. 130,084 133,722 133,722

Transfer from:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program

Account .......................................................... (408,333) (419,741) (422,241)

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications

Loans Program Account ................................. (34,640) (35,604) (36,000)

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account ........... (2,993) ......................... (3,082)

Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account ....... ......................... (3,082) .........................

Rural Local Television Program Account ........... ......................... ......................... (2,000)

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account .............................................................. (3,632) (3,733) (3,733)
102

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year—

Committee rec2001 appropria- ommendation

tion

2002 budget

request

Total, RD salaries and expenses .............. 579,682 595,882 600,778

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other

Federal programs to people in rural areas.

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $600,778,000 for salaries and expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development Programs. This amount is $21,096,000 more than the fiscal year 2001

level and $4,896,000 more than the budget request.

The Committee provides from within funds made available, $200,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for new field offices in Cordova, Kotzebue, and Kodiak, Alaska.

Within funds made available, the Secretary should develop a program to hire, train, and support staff in the Rural Development

local offices to provide a home buyer education and credit counseling service to Section 502 direct loan, and other, borrowers.

The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for Rural

Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to enter into

or renew a contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such activities

may include, but are not limited to, any function that affects eligibility determination, disbursement, collection or accounting for

Government subsidies provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the Rural Development mission area or the

Farm Service Agency. Further, the Secretary shall provide a report

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate by

March 1, 2002, on all plans by the Department to enter into contracts to carry out any of the previously stated activities.

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) fa-
103

cilitate 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

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total appropriations of

$1,480,977,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is $37,686,000

more than the 2001 level and $22,575,000 more than the budget request.

The Committee encourages the Department to continue to setaside of funds within rural housing programs to support self-help

housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and

State rental assistance, and other related activities that facilitate

the development of housing in rural areas.

The following table presents loan and grant program levels recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2001

levels and the 2002 budget request:

LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 2002 request

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan

levels:

Single family housing (sec. 502):

Direct ......................................................... (1,064,651) (1,064,650) (1,095,046)

Unsubsidized guaranteed .......................... (3,136,429) (3,137,968) (3,137,968)

Housing repair (sec. 504) .................................. (32,324) (32,324) (32,324)

Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538) ....... (99,780) (99,770) (99,770)

Rental housing (sec. 515) ................................. (114,070) (114,068) (114,068)

Site loans (sec. 524) .......................................... (5,152) (5,090) (5,090)

Credit sales of acquired property ...................... (11,779) (11,778) (11,778)

Self-help housing land development fund ........ (4,998) (5,000) (5,000)

Total, RHIF ................................................. (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044)

Farm Labor Program:

Farm labor housing loan level ........................... (28,460) (28,459) (28,459)

Farm labor housing grants ................................ 14,967 14,967 14,967

Total, Farm Labor Program ....................... (43,427) (43,426) (43,426)

Grants and payments:

Mutual and self-help housing ........................... 33,925 33,925 35,000

Rental assistance ............................................... 678,504 693,504 708,504

Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG] .......... 43,903 38,914 38,914
104

LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 2002 request

Total, rural housing grants and payments .................................................... 756,332 766,343 782,418

Total, RHS loans and grants .................... (5,268,942) (5,280,417) (5,326,888)

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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, 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. 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.

LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

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 2002, as well as for administrative

expenses. The following table presents the loan subsidy levels as

compared to the 2001 levels and the 2002 budget request:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Loan subsidies:

Single family (sec. 502):

Direct ............................................................. 170,983 140,108 144,108

Unsubsidized guaranteed .............................. 7,384 40,166 40,166

Housing repair (sec. 504) ...................................... 11,456 10,386 10,386

Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538) ........... 1,517 3,921 3,921

Rental housing (sec. 515) ..................................... 56,202 48,274 48,274

Site loans (sec. 524) .............................................. ......................... 28 28

Credit sales of acquired property .......................... 872 750 750

Self-help housing land development fund ............ 278 254 254

Total, loan subsidies ......................................... 248,692 243,887 247,887
105

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Administrative expenses .................................................. 408,333 419,741 422,241

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $678,504,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 693,504,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 708,504,000

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established a rural rental assistance program to be administered

through the rural housing loans program. The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in Rural

Housing Service financed rental projects and farm labor housing

projects. Under this program, low-income tenants will contribute

the higher of: (1) 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments from

a welfare agency.

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental

rate established for the unit.

The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing

Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing programs

and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to

existing projects for units occupied by 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $708,504,000. This amount is

$30,000,000 more than the 2001 level and $15,000,000 more than

the budget request.

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $33,925,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 33,925,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000

This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act

of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs under which groups of

usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction

supervisors who will work with families in the construction of their

homes and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
106

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for mutual and selfhelp housing grants. This is $1,075,000 more than the 2001 level

and $1,075,000 more than the budget request.

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $43,903,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 38,914,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,914,000

This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

Very low-income housing repair grants.—The Very Low-Income

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of

title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair grant

program is carried out by making grants to very low-income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make

such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health

of the occupants, their families, or the community.

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens,

repairing or providing structural supports or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair loan.

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $7,500,

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by

persons who are 62 years of age or older.

Supervisory and technical assistance grants.—Supervisory and

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to

become successful homeowners.

Compensation for construction defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued.

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted.
107

Rural housing preservation grants.—Rural housing preservation

grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act

of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair directed at 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 write-downs, or grants to finance home

repair. The program will be administered by local grantees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the Committee recommends $38,914,000. This is $4,989,000 less than the

2001 level and the same as the budget request.

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2001 levels and the

budget request:

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Very low-income housing repair grants ............................ 29,934 29,934 29,934

Supervisory and technical assistance .............................. 998 998 998

Rural housing preservation grants ................................... 7,982 7,982 7,982

Demonstration housing grants for agriculture processing

workers .......................................................................... 4,989 ........................ ........................

Total ..................................................................... 43,903 38,914 38,914

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Loan level Subsidy level Grants

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................................... (28,460) 14,967 14,967

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... (28,459) 13,464 14,967

Committee recommendation .............................................. (28,459) 13,464 14,967

The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized under

section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor housing

grant program is authorized under section 516 of the Housing Act

of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and contracts are made to

public and private nonprofit organizations for low-rent housing and

related facilities for domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not

exceed 90 percent of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may

be used for construction of new structures, site acquisition and development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and purchase of

furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining halls, community

rooms, and infirmaries.

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropria-
108

tions to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For direct farm labor housing loans, the Committee recommends

a total level of $28,431,000. This is $1,503 less than the 2001 level

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.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Estimated loan level ............................................................... (38,172) (38,171) (38,171)

Direct loan subsidy ................................................................. 19,433 16,494 16,494

Administrative expenses .......................................................... 3,632 3,733 3,733

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 (this is, 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

2002, as well as for administrative expenses.
109

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the Com- mittee recommends a total loan level of $38,171,000. This is $1,000

less than the 2001 loan level and the same as the budget request.

The Committee encourages the agency to consider the following

for intermediary relending loans: Rural Enterprises Incorporated

loan, Oklahoma; Santiam Canyon, Oregon; cooperative technical

assistance in Hilo, Hawaii; Shirley Community Development Center; and the Rural Manufacturing Jobs Initiative, Pennsylvania.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Estimated loan level ....................................... 14,969 14,966 14,966

Direct loan subsidy 1 ....................................... 3,902 3,616 3,616

1 Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the Rural

Electrification Act of 1936.

The rural economic development loans program was established

by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 100–203),

which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural Electrification

Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of credits payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The

Administrator of RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds

in this program to provide zero interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, including funding for

feasibility studies, startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for

the purpose of fostering rural economic development.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy appropriation

for rural economic development loans of $3,616,000. This amount

is $286,000 less than the 2001 level and the same as the budget

request. As proposed in the budget, the $3,616,000 provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of credit payments.

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $6,486,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,486,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,000,000

1 Excludes $9,978,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106–387.

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
110

applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from non-Federal

sources. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on specific

selection criteria.

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, organizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives.

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to

any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, and

other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in

rural areas.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are

environmentally friendly and lower production costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for rural cooperative development grants. This is $1,514,000 more than the 2001 level and

the budget request.

The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to

consider the following applications for cooperative development

grants: the Alaska Network Systems for Internet Facilities; Montana State University-Northern Cooperative Development Center;

Mississippi Association of Cooperatives; and a rural cooperative located in Elko, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties, Nevada.

Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development grants,

$2,000,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program.

The Committee has included language in the bill that not more

than $1,497,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance

to small, minority producers.

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $14,967,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 14,967,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,967,000

1Provided by Public Law 106–377.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $14,967,000 for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is

$14,967,000 more than the amount provided in Public Law 106–

387, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 and the

same as the budget request. $14,967,000 was provided in Public

Law 106–377, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing

and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Act, 2001.
111

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

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

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 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 2002, as well as for administrative

expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for

the ‘‘Rural electrification and telecommunications loans program’’

account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................. (121,128) (121,107) (121,107)

Direct, Muni ..................................................... (294,358) (294,358) (500,000)

Direct, FFB ....................................................... (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (2,600,000)

Direct, Treasury rate ........................................ (500,000) (500,000) (750,000)

Guaranteed ...................................................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)

Subtotal ....................................................... (2,615,486) (2,615,465) (4,071,107)

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................. (74,835) (74,827) (74,827)

Direct, Treasury rate ........................................ (300,000) (300,000) (300,000)
112

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Direct, FFB ....................................................... (120,000) (120,000) (120,000)

Subtotal ....................................................... (494,835) (494,827) (494,827)

Total, loan authorizations ........................... (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934)

Loan Subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................. 12,604 3,609 3,609

Direct, Muni ..................................................... 20,458 ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Direct, FFB ....................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Direct, Treasury rate ........................................ ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Guaranteed ...................................................... 10 80 80

Subtotal ....................................................... 32,532 3,689 3,689

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................. 7,753 1,736 1,736

Direct, Treasury rate ........................................ ( 1 ) 300 300

Direct, FFB ....................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Subtotal ....................................................... 7,753 2,036 2,036

Total, loan subsidies .................................. 40,285 5,725 5,725

Administrative expenses .................................................... 34,640 35,604 36,000

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Programs Account .................... 74,925 41,329 41,725

(Loan authorization) .................................... (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934)

1 Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are calculated for these programs.

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Loan level Direct loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2001 ..................................................... (174,615) 2,584 2,993

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................. ......................... ......................... 3,082

Committee recommendation .......................................... (174,615) 3,737 3,082

The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is 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
113

Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,737,000 which supports a loan

level of $174,615,000. This amount is $1,153,000 more than the

2001 level and $3,737,000 more than the budget request.

DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 level 2002 request

Distance learning and telemedicine direct loan ........ (400,000) (300,000) (300,000)

Broadband telecommunications direct loans ............. ......................... (100,000) (100,000)

Direct loan subsidy ..................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Grants .......................................................................... 26,941 26,941 51,941

Total ............................................................... (426,941) (426,941) (426,941)

1 Negative subsidy rates for fiscal year 2002 are calculated for this program.

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program is authorized

by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (104

Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This program

provides incentives to improve the quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced telecommunications services and computer

networks, and to improve rural opportunities.

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other

facilities providing rural residents access to better health care

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the Committee recommends $51,941,000. This amount is $25,000,000 more

than the 2001 level and the budget request. Of the funds provided

$25,000,000 is made available for a program to finance broadband

transmission and local dial-up Internet service for rural areas.

The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to

give consideration to the following applications for grants and

loans: Valley Children’s Hospital; the Center for the Advancement

of Distance Education in Rural American (CADERA) telehealth

proposal in New Mexico; the University of Vermont College of Medicine to support a statewide telemedicine system for trauma services; Fresno Community Medical Center’s Rural Outreach and Telemedicine Network; the Alaska Federal Health Care Access Net-
114

work; the Pacific Northwest digital divide center in Washington

State; the State of Vermont to support the expansion of distance

learning networks in schools; for distance learning sites in Bland,

Craig, and Grayson Counties, Virginia; Avera-McKennan Hospital

in South Dakota for the establishment of a Secure Rural Imaging

Network; the Business and Technology Center at Petit Jean College; Darton College’s information and education network in rural

Georgia; to establish a rural technology-assistance program at Iowa

State University; True North initiative to develop a technologybased sector across northeastern Minnesota; for aquaculture education and distance learning at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Center; and the College of Southern Idaho to expand educational opportunities to rural residents.

The Committee also is aware of the need for the distance learning and telemedicine link program of the Maui Community College,

the community hospital system, and the nutrition education activities of the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and

Human Resources. The Committee encourages the Department to

fund a demonstration project to build upon existing resources and

to further the use of advanced telecommunications by rural communities.

The bill provides $25,000,000 for rural broadband telecommunications infrastructure, rural Internet infrastructure, and refinancing to enhance rural broadband deployment, for grants and direct loans between 2 percent and treasury rates of interest plus

1⁄8th of a percent, with $12,500,000 of the budget authority available for grants and $12,500,000 available for loans.

LOCAL TELEVISION LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Direct loan

Subsidy

Administrative

Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Committee recommendation .............................................. $322,580,000 $25,000,000 $2,000,000

The local television loan guarantee program is authorized by

Public Law 106–533, Title X, Local TV Act. The purpose of this Act

is to facilitate access, on a technologically neutral basis and by December 31, 2006, to signals of local television stations for households located in nonserved areas and underserved 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 servicing of guaranteed

loans, as well as administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Local Television Loan Guarantee Program, the Committee recommends $25,000,000, which supports a loan level of

$322,580,000. This amount is $25,000,000 more than the fiscal year

2001 funding level and the budget request.
(115)

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $569,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 587,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 587,000

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 and consumer activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an appropriation

of $587,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the 2001 level and

the same as the budget request.

The Committee is aware of innovative work in Wisconsin and

Iowa which has made milk available through school vending machines as an alternative to other beverages. The Under Secretary

is urged to examine the merits of these experiments and, if found

to hold potential for improvement of child health and nutrition, is

expected to expand these efforts as pilot programs in these states.

During fiscal year 2001, funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation were provided for implementation of a Senior Farmers

Market Nutrition Program. The Committee notes the benefits such

a program serves to improve nutrition among the elderly, and also

provide an outlet for U.S. food production. The Committee encourages the Department to continue these activities in fiscal year 2002

and to work with the appropriate authorization committees to establish this program under law.

The Committee is concerned about the arrangements between

formula manufacturers and hospitals under which manufacturers

provide hospitals with formula and other products, product information and/or incentives and directs the Secretary to assess the

impact of such arrangements on State infant formula rebate contracts under the WIC Program and breast-feeding rates among

WIC participants.

The Committee recognizes that childhood obesity and adult diseases in children, such as type II diabetes of which poor nutrition

is the major contributing factor, have become a serious problem. In

response, the Committee believes that nutrition education is crucial

to the health and well-being of our nation’s children, and the Department should have a significant nutrition education program in

our schools. Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to put

an increased emphasis on nutrition education and training.
116

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs

include:

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and

breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades and

under, to children of preschool age in child care centers, and to

children in other institutions in order to improve the health and

well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the markets for

agricultural food commodities. Through the Special Milk Program,

assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute

or expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of fluid

milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers

redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved methods which

a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Food Stamp Program.—This program seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a better diet

by increasing their food purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the form of food stamps. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico. The Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35) authorizes a block

grant for Nutrition Assistance to 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 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.

Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–193) added

section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that $100,000,000

of food stamp funds be used to purchase commodities for The

Emergency Food Assistance Program. Funds for this program are

provided by direct appropriation.

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP],
117

and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance

Program [TEFAP].

CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to

age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women

with low incomes, and who reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies

to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was absorbed into

TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–193), by an amendment

to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act.

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. It also provides funding for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection

with relief for all disasters. Commodities, or cash in lieu of commodities, are provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.

Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Food Program Administration.—Most salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded from

this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition Policy and

Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and revisions

to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the focal point for

advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As of September 30,

2000, there were 1,524 full-time permanent and 89 part-time and

temporary employees in the agency. FNS’s headquarters staff,

which is located in Alexandria, VA, totals 553, and 1,060 FNS employees are located in the field. There are 7 regional offices employing 652 employees, and the balance of the agency is located in 4

food stamp compliance offices, 1 computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative review office, and 69 field offices.

Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation Section 32

transfers Total

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................. 4,413,931 5,127,579 9,541,510

Budget estimate, 2002 ......................................... 4,731,490 5,357,256 10,088,746

Committee recommendation .................................. 4,746,538 5,340,708 10,087,246

The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.

Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of

1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of

cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious

meals to children while they are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away

from home. The purpose of these programs is to help maintain the
118

health and proper physical development of America’s children. Milk

is provided to children either free or at a low cost depending on

their family income level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States

administering the programs and directly administers the program

in the States which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for

nutritional training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under current law, most of these payments are made on

the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to

lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the

Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, contains a number of child nutrition

provisions. These include:

Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].—Reauthorizes the program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.

Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].—Permanently authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 18

in after-school programs, 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 will be transferred into the 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.

A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:

1. Cash payments to States.—The programs are operated under

an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to State

agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and other institutions. Sponsors make application to the State agencies, and if

approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis in accordance with

the terms of their agreements and rates prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the

Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

(a) School Lunch Program.—Assistance is provided to the

States for the service of lunches to all school children, regardless of family income. States must match some of the Federal

cash grant. In fiscal year 2002, the School Lunch Program will

provide assistance for serving an estimated 4.7 billion school

lunches including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income

families and 2.7 billion for children from lower and low-income

families. An estimated 28.0 million children are expected to

participate in the program daily during the school year.

(b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price lunches.—

Additional assistance is provided to the States for serving

lunches free or at a reduced price to needy children. In fiscal

year 2002, under current law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.7 billion lunches, of which 2.3 billion will be

served free of charge and 0.4 billion at reduced price. About
119

16.2 million needy children will participate in the program on

an average schoolday during the year.

(c) School Breakfast Program.—Federal reimbursement to

the States is based on the number of breakfasts served free, at

a reduced price, or at the general rate for those served to

nonneedy children. Certain schools are designated in severe

need because, in the second preceding year, they served at

least 40 percent of their lunches at free or reduced prices and

because the regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to

cover cost, receive higher rates of reimbursement in both the

free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal year 2002, the program will serve an estimated 1.4 billion breakfasts to a daily

average of 8.4 million children.

A pilot project is authorized and funded to study the effects

of providing free breakfast to all students without regard to

family income.

(d) State administrative expenses.—The funds may be used

for State employee salaries, benefits, support services, and office equipment. Public Law 95–627 made the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 percent of certain Federal payments in the second previous year. In fiscal year 2002,

$129,929,000 will be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State administrative expenses and to improve the management of various nutrition programs.

(e) Summer Food Service Program.—Meals served free to

children in low-income neighborhoods during the summer

months are supported on a performance basis by Federal cash

subsidies to State agencies. Funds are also provided for related

State and local administrative expenses. During the summer of

2002, approximately 152.0 million meals will be served.

(f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.—Preschool children

receive year-round food assistance in nonprofit child care centers and family and group day care homes under this program.

Public Law 97–35 permits profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation under title XX of the Social Security Act

to participate in the program if 25 percent of the children

served are title XX participants. Certain adult day care centers

are also eligible for participation in this program, providing

subsidized meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or

older. The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses

State agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related State

audit expenses. In fiscal year 2002, approximately 1.8 billion

meals will be served.

2. Commodity procurement.—Commodities are purchased for distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer food

service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for all

school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers served is

mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to reflect

changes in the producer price index for food used in schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 funds.

3. Nutrition studies and education.—
120

(a) Nutrition education and training [NET].—This program

provides funds to State agencies for the development of comprehensive nutrition education and information programs for

children participating in or eligible for school lunch and related

child nutrition programs.

(b) National Food Service Management Institute [NFSMI].—

The National Food Service Management Institute provides instruction for educators and school food service personnel in nutrition and food service management.

4. Special milk.—In fiscal year 2002, approximately 120.3 million

half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. These include about 114.5 million half-pints served to children whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During fiscal year 2002,

the average full cost reimbursement for milk served to needy children is expected to be 17.0 cents for each half-pint. Milk served to

nonneedy children is expected to be reimbursed at 13.0 cents for

each half-pint.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends an

appropriation of $4,746,538,000, plus transfers from section 32 of

$5,340,708,000, for a total program of $10,087,246,000. This

amount is $545,736,000 more than the 2001 level and $1,500,000

less than the budget request.

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY

[In thousands of dollars]

Child nutrition programs 2001 estimate 2002 budget Committee recommendation

School Lunch Program ...................................................... 5,468,561 5,759,232 5,759,232

School Breakfast Program ................................................. 1,488,604 1,579,752 1,579,752

State administrative expenses .......................................... 123,256 129,929 129,929

Summer Food Service Program ......................................... 299,959 325,341 325,341

Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................. 1,765,743 1,878,179 1,878,179

Special Milk Program ........................................................ 15,874 15,940 15,940

Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support ................................................................................ 357,023 381,877 381,877

Coordinated review system ............................................... 4,507 4,507 4,507

Team nutrition ................................................................... 9,991 9,991 9,991

Food safety education ....................................................... 1,998 1,998 1,998

School breakfast demonstration project ........................... 5,994 ........................ ........................

School lunch program integrity ......................................... ........................ 2,000 ........................

School Breakfast Startup Grant Program ......................... ........................ ........................ 500

The Committee provides $9,991,000 for TEAM nutrition. 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 National Food Service Management Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and electronic food service resource systems; and $3,191,000 for other activities.
121

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program.

The Committee provides $500,000 to continue a School Breakfast

Program startup grant program for the State of Wisconsin in order

to help cover appropriate costs associated with the program and to

expand the availability of school breakfasts for children.

The Committee includes a general provision in the bill to expand

the number of low-income children in child care centers that receive nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care Food Program. This language eliminates the outdated requirement that eligible children receive Title 20 funds in order to receive the CACFP

meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary centers to participate

in CACFP if at least 25 percent of the children they serve are eligible for a free or reduced price meal.

The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25 percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option. The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in increasing

participation in the CACFP program. Under current law, which

provides two options of participation, States are encouraged to use

this flexibility to maximize participation until the 25 percent free

or reduced-price meal eligibility criteria is made permanent.

Congress amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch

Act in 1998 to strengthen the Buy American provision that applies

to the school-based child nutrition programs. FNS issued regulations implementing this provision in 1999, but the Committee is

concerned that the agency has not enforced these regulations. FNS

is directed to provide a report to the U.S. Senate and House Committee on Appropriations by December 31, 2001, on how the agency

intends to enforce the Buy American provision of the act that applies to purchases conducted by schools.

The Committee is concerned about the rising costs of food and

labor to our meal programs. The Committee understands that the

reimbursement rates for school meals are adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index for food away from home. Changes

in the labor market may have caused wages for school food service

personnel to increase at a rate faster than the index benchmark.

Furthermore, the reimbursement rate for after school snacks authorized under the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition and WIC

Reauthorization Act of 1998 has come under question as being inadequate to cover the costs of these snacks. Therefore, the Committee requests that the Secretary conduct a study and report back

to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate no later than June 30, 2002, on the actual national average cost of meals served under the authority of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition

Act of 1966. The Committee also requests that the report discuss

any significant local or regional cost factors that may affect the sufficiency of the reimbursement rate in those locales.
122

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $4,043,086,000

Budget estimate, 2002 1 ......................................................................... 4,137,086,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 4,247,086,000

1 Includes up to $19,956,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. 2 Includes up to $25,000,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.

The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants,

and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant,

breast-feeding and post partum women and infants, and children

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.25 million participants at an average food cost of $34.72 per person per month in fiscal year 2002.

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter.

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods:

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet.

The food is free of charge to all participants.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, reauthorizes the program through 2003

and adds several provisions to the program. For example, the Act

requires that an individual seeking certification or recertification in

the program must provide documentation of family income. In addition, 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.

Public Law 105–336 also includes many provisions to improve retailer integrity and help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse in the

program.

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also

funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC (or WIC-eligible) 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. Although directly

related to the WIC Program, about one-half of the current FMNP

operations are administered by State departments of agriculture

rather than the State WIC agencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,

and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an appropriation
123

of $4,247,086,000. This amount is $204,000,000 more than the 2001

appropriation and $110,000,000 more than the budget request.

The WIC Program continues to be a high priority of the Committee. Since the submission of the President’s budget, WIC participation appears to be above projected levels and economic forecasts for the coming year suggest program demand will continue to

rise. Accordingly, the Committee provides increased funding for the

WIC Program for fiscal year 2002 to meet anticipated caseload demand.

The Committee makes available up to $25,000,000, $5,044,000

more than the fiscal year 2001 level, to carry out the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure fund- ing and includes language in the bill earmarking $6,000,000 for

WIC electronic benefit transfer systems.

While the Committee supports and encourages State and local

agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participation referral to other health care services, it recognizes the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program activities. 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 in such a manner that supplants the responsibilities of other

programs, nor was it the Committee’s intention that WIC State and

local agencies should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again

includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC

services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not used

to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or activities other

than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition

Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal

agency. Within the context of authorized activities, the Committee

notes an Executive Memorandum issued by the President on December 11, 2000, on the subject of improving immunization rates

for children at risk. The Committee supports the goal of the Executive Memorandum, but remains concerned that the delivery of core

WIC objectives may suffer without properly shared responsibilities

and resources from other agencies. The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to delineate departmental financial and operational responsibilities necessary to promote the

objectives of the Executive Memorandum and to provide a report

on this subject to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.

The Committee notes that, in spite of advances in food and nutrition science, the WIC food prescription has changed little since

1974. In the past decade, USDA has twice solicited comments—in

1994, and again in 1998—on a draft policy on food substitutions to

accommodate food preferences and ethnic cultural eating patterns.

The Committee regrets that the Department has not moved forward with the development of a WIC food prescription that responds to the needs of the culturally sensitive populations WIC
124

serves. Further action to respond to these concerns needs to be

taken. The Committee urges the Department to move expeditiously, in consultation with WIC public health nutritionists and directors, to develop for public comment a food prescription rule responding to these needs and to provide a report to the Committee

by January 31, 2002, regarding the status and publication of a culturally sensitive food prescription.

The Committee strongly supports WIC infant formula rebates as

an effective program cost containment measure, but is aware of reports that certain health care providers offer short term supplies

to new mothers which may or may not contain infant formula included in that State’s rebate program. It has been suggested that

this practice may result in an infant’s reliance on a non-rebate formula and, consequently, higher program costs. The Committee requests the Secretary to examine this issue and report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1,

2002 on any program cost implications of sole source contracts between pharmaceutical companies and health care providers that reduce the effectiveness of the infant formula rebates and on the

stated program goal of enhanced breast feeding.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

Expenses Amount in

reserve Puerto Rico

TEFAP commodity purchases

Total

Appropriations, 2001 ................................... 18,618,228 100,000 1,301,000 100,000 20,119,228

Budget estimate, 2002 ............................... 19,556,436 1,000,000 1,335,550 100,000 21,991,986

Committee recommendation ....................... 19,556,436 100,000 1,335,550 100,000 21,091,986

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. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104–193, reauthorizes the Food

Stamp Program through fiscal year 2002.

The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50

States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

Participating households receive food stamps, the value of which is

determined by household size and income. The cost of the stamps

is paid by the Federal Government and is called the benefit cost.

As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service periodically revises household stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of

the thrifty food plan. The last revision was made on October 1,

2000.

State social service agencies assume responsibility for certifying

eligible households and issuing the stamps through suitable outlets. 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 the Federal

Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained
125

by the U.S. Treasury Department. The major alternative to the

paper food stamp system is electronic benefit transfer [EBT].

By the end of fiscal year 2000, 41 States and the District of Columbia had operating EBT systems. They are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Thirty-seven of

these systems are statewide. All other States are in some stage of

planning or implementing their EBT systems.

Nutrition Assistance to 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 to establish a nutrition assistance program

that is specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income households. However, the commonwealth must submit its annual plan of

operation to the Secretary for approval. The FAIR Act of 1996,

Public Law 104–127, enacted November 5, 1996, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal year 2002. In addition to the provision

of direct benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used

to fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program.

The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture

and food distribution in Puerto Rico.

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations

who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp Program.

Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–193) added

section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that $100,000,000

of food stamp funds be used to purchase commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance 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. Under

the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, a State agency is held liable

if its error rate of overissuances exceeds the lowest achieved national error rate average plus 1 percent. Liabilities are based on

the level of State issuance and the extent to which the State’s error

rate exceeds a tolerance level. 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.

State administration also includes State antifraud activities.—

Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended

by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993, States

are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their

food stamp fraud investigations and prosecutions.
126

States are required to implement an employment and training

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, training,

or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department of Agriculture implemented a new grant program to States to assist them in providing

employment and training services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends

$21,091,986,000. This is $972,758,000 more than the 2001 appropriated level and $900,000,000 less than the budget request. Of the

amount provided, $100,000,000 is made available as a contingency

reserve. This is $900,000,000 less than the contingency reserve

level proposed in the budget and the same as the 2001 level.

Included in this amount is up to $3,000,000 to purchase bison for

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations from Native

American producers and Cooperative Organizations without competition.

The Committee is aware of a pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not

allow for the proper and efficient storage and distribution of commodities, and Indian Tribal Organizations must be able to replace

and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with improvements

in the food package, including the addition of fresh produce and

more frozen foods as program options, which generates the need for

cooler and freezer equipment. Therefore, the Committee directs the

Secretary to conduct an assessment of facility and equipment needs

in FDPIR, and to report to the Committee no later than December

31, 2001.

Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

must submit for the Secretary’s approval a yearly plan that contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits under

the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico are provided during the following fiscal year. While the Committee notes

the program flexibility normally afforded to Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages 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 certain stores with point-of-sales devices.

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $139,991,000

Budget estimate, 2002 1 ......................................................................... 139,991,000

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 139,991,000

1Does not reflect $5,300,000 rescission of available prior year appropriations.

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].—Authorized by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection

Act of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97–98, this pro-
127

gram provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age

6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who

have low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity distribution projects directed

at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.

In fiscal year 2002 approximately 94,400 women, infants, and

young children and 335,600 elderly are authorized to receive food

packages each month. The foods are provided by the Department

of Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant formula, rice cereal,

canned juice, evaporated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut butter or dry beans. Elderly participants

may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant formula

and rice cereal.

The 1996 FAIR Act, Public Law 104–127, reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2002.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Title II of

Public Law 98–8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and appropriated funds for the costs of intrastate storage and transportation

of CCC-donated commodities. Under the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

193), the Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was absorbed into

TEFAP by amending section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act. While commodities will not be purchased specifically for

soup kitchens and food banks, they will be eligible to receive commodities through TEFAP.

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below

the poverty level.

In fiscal year 2000, $162,029,525 worth of surplus commodities

were distributed to assist needy individuals. Donations will continue in fiscal year 2001. Precise levels depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2002, $45,000,000 will be used to help

State and local authorities with the storage and distribution costs

of providing surplus commodities to needy individuals. Although

the $45,000,000 was allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds, each State is authorized to redirect funding for the

purchase of additional commodities.

The 1996 FAIR Act reauthorizes administrative funding through

fiscal year 2002 and allows these funds to be used for local repackaging and further processing of commodities high in nutrient content. The law requires CCC bonus commodities to be distributed

through TEFAP, and reauthorizes funding for the purchase of

TEFAP commodities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $139,991,000. This amount is the

same as the 2001 funding level and the budget request.
128

The Committee continues to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among the

States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities of each

State and the State’s preference to receive commodity allocations

through each of the programs funded under this account.

The Committee is aware that, notwithstanding the rescission of

$5,300,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the

Department will have sufficient unspent prior-year carryover balances in fiscal year 2002 both to expand the program in currently

participating states and to admit new states that may apply for the

program. The new states include Washington, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food products are made available by hunters and other game harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State inspected facilities and present an additional source of donated commodities.

The Department should give consideration to this opportunity as a

means to supplement and provide variety to food assistance programs and, if appropriate, allow the use of TEFAP administrative

funds for this purpose.

FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $150,749,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 150,749,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,749,000

Nutrition Program for the Elderly.—Commodity support for the

Nutrition Program for the Elderly is authorized by titles III and VI

of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods provided are used

in preparing meals which are served in senior citizen centers and

similar settings or delivered to the homebound elderly. These meals

are the focal point of the nutrition projects for the elderly which

have the dual objective of promoting better health and reducing the

isolation of old age.

Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites. Some States

elect to take all of their subsidy in cash and some States choose

to receive a combination of cash and commodities. The commodities

made available to the Nutrition Program for the Elderly are generally the same as those provided to schools under the Child Nutrition Programs. In previous years, the State agencies that elected

to receive cash in lieu of commodities were funded on a payment

per meal basis. The Older Americans Act of 2000, Public Law 106–

501, enacted November 13, 2000, revised the funding formula. The

Act requires that each State or grantee receive a proportion of

available funds equal to the proportion of meals served by that

State or grantee in the preceding fiscal year. The Act reauthorizes

the program through 2005.

Pacific Island assistance.—This program provides funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of commodities

and administrative funds. It also provides funding for use in nonPresidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs

in connection with relief for all disasters.
129

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the food donations programs for selected groups, the Committee recommends $150,749,000. This amount is the same as the

2001 appropriation and the budget request. Of the amount recommended by the Committee, $1,079,000 is for the needy family

program and $149,670,000 is for the elderly feeding program.

FOOD PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 1 2 ......................................................................... $116,550,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 125,546,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 127,546,000

1Does not reflect the transfer of $998,000 from the Economic Research Service for studies and

evaluations pursuant to Public Law 106–387. 2Does not reflect $1,996,000 transferred to the Congressional Hunger Center Foundation provided by Public Law 106–113.

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 Milk

Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and the Food Donations Programs, including the

Nutrition Program for the Elderly and Pacific Island Assistance.

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 the

progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and (4)

carrying out regular staff support functions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $127,546,000. This amount is $10,996,000 more

than the 2001 level and $2,000,000 more than the budget request.

Included in this amount is an increase of $2,000,000 for activities

to enhance integrity of the National School Lunch Program.
(130)

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations Transfers from loan

accounts Total

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................... 115,170 (4,257) (119,427)

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................... 121,563 (4,257) (125,820)

Committee recommendation .............................. 121,563 (4,257) (125,820)

The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established March

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1.

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricultural attache ́s from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and

reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with information on world agricultural production and trade that they can use

to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. agricultural products. This is accomplished through a continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout the world covering some 130

countries.

The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current situation and

to forecast the export potential for specific U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about commodities are combined

with attache ́ reports and subjected to analysis through advanced

econometric techniques to generate these estimates.

In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques for

identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of events which

may affect the condition and expected production of foreign crops

of economic importance to the United States. The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and related data.

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm products, improve world

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 80 offices around

the world where they provide expertise in agricultural economics

and marketing, as well as provide attache ́ services.

The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with market development cooperators, trade associations, State departments

of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales teams to develop

foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS sponsors overseas
131

trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural products, provides information about foreign importers, and performs a wide range of market development activities.

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S.

agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement Program uses CCCowned commodities as export bonuses to provide export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in

conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private

firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments.

These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, a

joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture export expansion. Through 2000, nonprofit private trade and producer associations have generated an estimated $1,361,000,000 in contributions to more than match the $824,000,000 contributed by FAS to

finance overseas market promotion activities under the Cooperator

Program. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the recent progress of American agriculture in the

world marketplace.

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 16 such offices

are in operation at key foreign trading centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing officials in trade

promotion.

The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the Department’s

formulation of trade policies and programs with the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. agricultural products. It monitors international compliance with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies restrictive tariff and trade

practices which act as barriers to the import of U.S. agricultural

commodities, then supports negotiations to remove them. It acts to

counter and eliminate unfair trade practices by other countries

that hinder U.S. agricultural exports to third markets.

FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing countries as

parts of a complementary global agricultural system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies and U.S. agricultural perspectives

in its programs of international agricultural cooperation and development, and in its work with foreign countries, international organizations, U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the

U.S. Government, and the U.S. private sector.

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including supplier

credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, (2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–103), (3) Public Law

480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) programs
132

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $121,563,000. This is $6,393,000 more than the

2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 2001

level.

The Committee provides $4,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship

Program, the same amount as the fiscal year 2001 level and the

budget request. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional support for the program through the

Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging Markets Program at the

fiscal year 1999 level.

The Committee continues to include language in a general provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up to

$2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations

in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation.

The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-authorized

levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), consistent

with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.

The Committee is concerned that the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) loses a substantial percentage of its tonnage every

year due to cancellation or nullification of DEIP awards by foreign

buyers or for other reasons beyond the control of U.S. dairy producers. Because the permitted DEIP tonnage is strictly limited

each year under United States commitments made to the World

Trade Organization (WTO), it is vital that this lost tonnage be reallocated during the applicable export year under WTO rules so

that it can be used, not wasted. Therefore, the Committee directs

the Department of Agriculture to prepare a plan, after consultation

with industry representatives, that substantially resolves this serious problem, and to report to the Committee on the plan.

The Committee understands there is a lack of exports from medium and small producers in rural areas because many of these

producers do not have information available to them regarding exporting. Therefore, the Committee encourages the USDA’s Foreign

Agricultural Service to partner with the South Carolina Export

Consortium, specifically South Carolina State University, to provide appropriate types of export-related assistance, which will help

small and medium-sized producers who would not traditionally

have the resources to attempt expansion through international

trade.

The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service to

assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and

other seafood to overseas markets.
133

To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve

world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural Service

must increase its efforts to improve the understanding among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the thoroughness of

the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology. As trading partners

construct regulatory systems for biotechnology and commodity

trade, FAS is frequently requested to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the U.S. fails to participate in such discussions,

those attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S. producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine confidence in

the benefits and safety of the technology while reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The Committee directs FAS to

allocate adequate funding to meet the needs of our trading partners so that officials from the Department of Agriculture may,

when requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety of the

technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory process.

The Committee urges USDA to continue implementing the Global Food for Education (GFE) initiative in fiscal year 2002 under its

Section 416(b) authority and to make financial assistance available

to intergovernmental organizations, private voluntary organizations and cooperatives for the distribution and administrative costs

of their GFE programs. In addition, the Committee continues to

urge the Secretary to work with representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the

amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................... (159,327) 113,935 1,846

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................... (139,399) 113,935 2,005

Committee recommendation .............................. (159,327) 130,218 2,005

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans obligated in 2001

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 act 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
134

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 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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total appropriations of $132,223,000. This amount is $16,442,000 more

than the 2001 level and $16,283,000 more than the budget request.

This appropriation will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit

level of $159,327,000 for fiscal year 2002, the same as the 2001

level and $19,928,000 more than the budget request. The corresponding loan levels, loan subsidy amounts, and administrative

expenses are reflected in the table above, as compared to the fiscal

year 2001 and budget request levels.

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $20,277,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 20,277,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,277,000

Ocean freight differential costs in connection with commodity

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the Committee recommends $20,277,000. This is the same as the fiscal year

2001 level and the budget request.

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $835,159,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 835,159,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 850,000,000

The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Public

Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote

broad-based equitable and sustainable development; expand international trade; develop and expand export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage the development of

private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly supports the continued efficient operation of this important program.

Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad

(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are
135

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of

$850,000,000. This is $14,841,000 more than the fiscal year 2001

level and the budget request.

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

[FAIR Act], Public Law 104–127, requires that a minimum of 2.025

million metric tons of commodities be provided each fiscal year

under title II authority, of which 1.55 million metric tons—threefourths of the total minimum tonnage—is designated for development programs that address chronic hunger and its root causes in

areas with inadequate food security.

The Committee expects USAID’s administration of Public Law

480 title II to encourage private voluntary organizations [PVO’s],

cooperatives, and the World Food Program [WFP] to generate a

sufficient volume of proposals to allocate roughly three-fourths of

the total title II tonnage funded for fiscal year 2002 for these

PVOs, cooperatives, and the WFP for developmental food security

programs.

The Committee recognizes the authority of USAID to waive this

minimum when this volume of commodities cannot be used effectively and for certain emergencies, but believes this waiver should

be used rarely, and only when emergency needs can be weighed

against concrete proposals for a fully funded longer-term development program.

The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal year

2002 to continue the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the orphan feeding program in Haiti.

The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the people

of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith Council, the

Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to collect and distribute food and other assistance to people living in the Russian

Far East. The Committee urges the Administration to work with

these entities to take advantage of their volunteer efforts in feeding

people in the Russian Far East, particularly abandoned children

living in orphanages and hospitals.
136

The Committee is aware of the agency’s involvement with new

technologies for reducing losses to Public Law 480 title II shipments which have resulted from leaking vegetable oil containers.

The Committee encourages the agency to continue this effort and

pursue further design and development of suitable containers that

will prevent future losses and enhance overall program efficiency.

As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7 U.S.C.

1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds available for any

fiscal year for carrying out any title of Public Law 480 to any other

title of the program. This authority may be used to transfer funds

to title III should a transfer be deemed appropriate.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM–102 AND GSM–103)

[In thousands of dollars]

Guaranteed loan

levels

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................. 1 3,792,000 304,959 3,812

Budget estimate, 2002 ......................................... 1 3,904,000 265,584 4,014

1 No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted the

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments

due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales contracts (up to

36 months) for defaults due to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the date of export to the

end of the deferred payment period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that portion of the payments agreed to in the

assurance agreement. Operation of this program is based on criteria which will assure that it is used only where it is determined

that it will develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The

program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide financing

to those areas where the institutions would be unwilling to provide

financing in the absence of the CCC guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under the Export Credit Guarantee

programs including supplier credit guarantee, under which CCC

guarantees payments due to importers under short term financing

(up to 180 days) that exporters extend directly to importers for the

purchase of U.S. agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities

financing guarantees.

In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program

(GSM–103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority

as required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), but provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold on

credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10 years. The

program also provides for adjusting the maximum amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the payment guarantee

and permits freight costs to be covered for breeding animals financed under the GSM–102 and GSM–103 programs.
137

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this

account will be used for administrative expenses.
(138)

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a scientific regulatory agency whose sole mission is to protect and promote the

health and safety of Americans. The Food and Drug Administration

Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) reaffirmed the responsibilities

of the FDA: To promote the public health by promptly and efficiently reviewing clinical research and taking appropriate action on

the marketing of regulated products in a timely manner.

The FDA Foods Program has the primary responsibility for assuring that the U.S. food supply is safe, sanitary, wholesome, and

honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in keeping the United States food supply

among the safest in the world.

The FDA drugs programs are comprised of three separate areas,

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is responsible for

the premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. For

Human Drugs this includes the review of investigational new drug

applications; evaluation of market applications for new and generic

drugs, labeling and composition of prescription and over-thecounter drugs; monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, or imported into, the United States; and, regulating

the advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal

Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-producing

animals, are approved for marketing. Surveillance activities are accomplished through review of drug experience reports, adverse experience reporting and nationwide inspections and investigations.

The Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood

test kits, vaccines, including vaccines to counter bioterrorism activities, bacterial vaccines, and viral vaccines, are pure, potent, safe,

effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood banks

and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting human

source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing

firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization.
139

The Devices and Radiological program ensures safety and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, and consumer products. Postmarket surveillance is carried out to ensure

the continued safety and effectiveness of marketed devices and radiation emitting products once approved. In addition, the program

enforces quality standards under the Mammography Quality

Standards Act. Medical devices include thousands of products from

thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing

aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video display terminals.

FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson,

Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting peer-review

scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound

science-based regulatory decisions through its premarket review

and postmarket surveillance. The research is designed to define

and understand the biological mechanisms of action underlying the

toxicity of products and developing methods to improve assessment

of human exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation

Prescription drug

user fees

Mammography clinics inspection fees

Export and

certification feesTotal

Appropriations, 2001 1 .................................................... $1,066,173 $149,273 $15,128 $5,992 $1,236,566

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ................................................. 1,173,673 161,716 15,590 6,181 1,357,160

Committee recommendation 3 ......................................... 1,182,670 161,716 15,590 6,181 1,364,660

1 Excludes $22,950,000 contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000 pursuant to Public Law 106–387. 2 Includes Freedom of Information Act and proposed Human Subject Protection and Bioterrorism transfers. Excludes

$2,950,000 proposed contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000, and $20,000,000 in

collections from proposed legislation to authorize new user fees. 3 Includes Freedom of Information Act transfer.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,182,670,000. This amount is $116,497,000 more than

the 2001 level and $8,997,000 more than the budget request. The

Committee also recommends $161,716,000 in Prescription Drug

User Fee Act user fee collections, and $15,590,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, as assumed in the

President’s budget. These amounts are $12,443,000 and $462,000

more than the 2001 levels, respectively. The Committee includes

bill language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or

operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as

compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:
140

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 3

2001 enacted 1 2002 request 2

Centers and related field activities:

Foods ................................................................................. 284,641 306,105 310,926

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

[CFSAN] ................................................................ 124,842 134,071 137,214

Field activities .......................................................... 159,799 172,034 173,712

(Food safety initiatives) .................................. (189,626) (204,679) (204,679)

Human drugs .................................................................... 217,768 240,141 244,390

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] .. 138,755 151,530 154,003

Orphan product grants ............................................ 12,507 12,507 14,207

Field activities .......................................................... 66,506 76,104 76,180

Biologics ............................................................................ 108,097 119,463 120,087

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

[CBER] ................................................................. 86,341 93,521 94,120

Field activities .......................................................... 21,756 25,942 25,967

Animal drugs ..................................................................... 63,928 81,109 81,182

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ..................... 48,917 54,323 54,379

Field activities .......................................................... 15,011 26,786 26,803

(Food safety initiatives) .................................. (15,315) (17,379) (17,379)

Medical and radiological devices ..................................... 164,844 178,572 178,761

Center for Devices and Radiological Health

[CDRH] ................................................................. 122,217 130,527 130,667

Field activities .......................................................... 42,627 48,045 48,094

National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] ......... 35,490 36,943 36,984

(Food safety initiatives) ........................................... (2,993) (3,485) (3,485)

Other activities ........................................................................... 66,731 80,666 79,666

Office of the Commissioner .............................................. 9,008 11,908 10,908

Office of Management and Systems ................................ 29,291 39,359 39,359

Office of Senior Associate Commissioner ......................... 7,772 8,039 8,039

Office of International and Constituent Relations ........... 6,370 6,670 6,670

Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning ...................... 7,453 7,853 7,853

Central services ................................................................ 6,837 6,837 6,837

(Food safety initiatives) ........................................... (8,740) (9,264) (9,264)

Rent and related activities ........................................................ 25,798 31,798 31,798

Rental payments to GSA ............................................................ 98,876 98,876 98,876
141

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 3

2001 enacted 1 2002 request 2

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ....................................................................... 1,066,173 1,173,673 1,182,670

1 Excludes $22,950,000 contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000 pursuant to

Public Law 106–387. 2 Includes Freedom of Information Act and proposed Human Subject Protection and Bioterrorism transfers. Excludes

$2,950,000 proposed contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000, and $20,000,000 in

collections from proposed legislation to authorize new user fees. 3 Includes Freedom of Information Act transfer.

The Committee recommends the full increase in budget authority

requested in the budget for FDA salaries and expenses activities,

as follows: $40,000,000 to cover pay-related increases; $15,000,000

for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) prevention, surveillance and compliance activities; $10,297,000 to increase the number of domestic and foreign inspections and expand import coverage

in all product areas; $10,000,000 to reduce adverse events associated with the use of medical products; $10,000,000 to better protect

the rights and welfare of volunteers and the integrity of data in

clinical research trials; $9,400,000 to expand food safety efforts;

$8,300,000 to begin acquisition of a new integrated financial system; and $6,000,000 for one-time costs to equip and occupy the

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) laboratory portion of the new facility at White Oak in Adelphi, MD.

As requested in the budget, the Committee makes available for

2 years the $6,000,000 provided for the relocation of the CDER laboratory functions to White Oak.

For FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration

(GSA), the Committee recommends new budget authority of

$98,867,000, the same as the 2001 and budget request levels.

Food safety.—An increase of $18,133,000 from the fiscal year

2001 level is recommended by the Committee for FDA food safety

activities, bringing total funding for food safety to $234,807,000.

Within the total funding available, at least $2,100,000 is for FDA

activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.

The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate

Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the FDA

and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety regulations

through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee

recommends no less than the fiscal year 2001 level be directed

through the Office of Seafood Inspection to continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.

The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for

FDA to continue its contract with New Mexico State University’s

Physical Science Laboratory to conduct method evaluation of rapid

testing methods of fresh fruits and vegetables for microbial contamination. The funds are to be provided from the total sum appropriated for food safety initiatives.
142

The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for the

Waste Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC)

and its work in food safety technology verification and education.

With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health,

the Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety

should continue among government, academia, and private industry. The national model for that collaboration has been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) in SummitArgo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to maintain at least

$3,000,000 as the annual base level of funding for the National

Center to continue the important work done there.

In addition, the funding provided for food safety will ensure the

continuation of food contract inspections in the State of Alaska.

Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew its contract with the

State of Alaska for inspections of food and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current contract funds 100 inspections, approximately 90 seafood/HACCP inspections and 60 other food inspections, at a cost of approximately $121,000. The contract extension is scheduled to begin July 1, 2001, for approximately $221,884,

and will fund over 250 inspections. The establishments to be inspected will be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of

Alaska.

Included in the total amount provided for food safety is $1,000,000 to analyze risks associated with emerging biotech foods

and develop criteria for evaluating the safety of biotech foods used

for animal feeds.

Seafood Safety.—Two recent General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of

the FDA efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including

shellfish. Both reports found FDA’s seafood inspection system provides consumers with inadequate protection for seafood-related

foodborne illness. The Committee asks FDA to report to the Committee by January 1, 2002 regarding implementation of recommendations by GAO, and the timetable for bringing all FDA–

regulated seafood processors into compliance with HACCP. The

Committee also asks FDA to report whether its existing authorities

and appropriations are sufficient for FDA to accomplish its food

safety mission. The Committee urges FDA to promote the development of new food safety technologies such as irradiation, flash

freezing, high-pressure processing, or others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of pathogens, and technologies that can

ensure constant safe temperatures of seafood throughout the food

chain.

The Committee is also concerned that FDA has not taken effective action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption

of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned that

Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission’s (ISSC) proposed steps

to reduce the rates of death and illness due to consumption of

Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may not effectively address public health concerns. Therefore, the Committee directs the

FDA to report to the Committee by March 1, 2002 regarding the

effectiveness of existing and proposed measures by the FDA and

ISSC to ensure the safety of raw seafood intended for human consumption. This report should include FDA’s assessment of the risk
143

of illness from consuming of raw seafood and the costs, benefits,

and feasibility of requiring post-harvest treatment for raw seafood

intended for human consumption.

Latex Allergies.—-The Committee recognizes the increasing prevalence of latex allergies. These allergies in some instances can be

deadly. Some individuals with latex allergies can suffer an allergic

reaction when they come in contact with food that has been prepared by food handlers using latex gloves. Consumers have reported allergic reactions caused by food handled with latex gloves

to the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, but FDA

has not responded even though it acknowledges the health hazard

posed by food handlers wearing latex gloves in the 1999 Food Code

Annex 3 3–3–4.15; 3–304.15. Given this, the Committee directs the

FDA to report back within 9 months of the enactment of this Act

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation a full plan

to eliminate exposure to latex from food handling. The Committee

also encourages the FDA to add latex to its priority list of food allergens.

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.—The

Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service (NARMS) and its collaborative relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee expects the coordination of activities among these three areas of government to

result in the most unbiased presentation of timely, accurate data

in the best interest of public health. The FDA is directed to report

to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and the Senate

by May 2002 on the activities of the NARMS including the interagency agreements and interactions with non-governmental institutions.

Orphan Products Grants.—-Included in the Human Drugs in- crease is an additional $2,000,000 for the Orphan Products Grants

Program. This will fund a total grants level of $14,207,000 for fiscal year 2002, a $1,700,000 increase from the fiscal year 2001 level.

Also provided is $2,835,000 to administer the Orphan Products

Grant Program, an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2001

level.

Dietary Supplements.—An adverse event reporting (AER) system

is essential to help FDA ensure the safety of dietary supplements

available to American consumers. To enhance FDA’s efforts to identify and respond to health problems potentially linked to the consumption of dietary supplements, the Committee recommends a

total increase of $3,000,000 to strengthen FDA’s data collection and

evaluation efforts associated with adverse events associated with

dietary supplements. This amount is $2,000,000 above the

$1,000,000 associated with dietary supplements proposed in the

budget increase for AER.

FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze specific components in ingredients, including botanical ingredients, is

an essential component of research and regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee provides $2,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2002 to continue the review of botanicals in dietary supplements. This work is being carried out by FDA in col-
144

laboration with the National Center for Natural Products Research,

Oxford, MS.

Rent payments.—The Committee recommends $98,876,000 for

FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration

[GSA], the same level as proposed in the budget and 2001 level.

Gene Therapy Patient Tracking System.—The Committee is concerned about FDA’s delay in responding to the fiscal year 1995 Agriculture Appropriations language requiring a gene therapy individual patient tracking system. The report accompanying the fiscal

year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (Public Law 106–387)

contained a requirement that FDA submit a detailed budget and

plan for enactment of this system by January 2001. As of July

2001, a report responding to the Committee’s directive has not been

received. In addition, the Committee notes that FDA has not complied with the original language requiring individual tracking, as

opposed to another adverse event reporting system. Given the

length of time FDA has had to develop such a tracking system, and

the recent reported deaths of gene therapy patients, the Committee

provides an increase of $500,000 to the Center for Biologics and directs FDA to modify its gene therapy system so that it meets Congressional intent to track individual patient’s health status both in

the short- and long-term. The Committee directs FDA to submit

quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation on the establishment of this new tracking system, its implementation and funding matters.

Biotechnology.—The Committee understands that the FDA frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing information on the

soundness of the U.S. regulatory process will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology to human health and the

environment and improve the climate for acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency representatives may perform

this service.

The Committee commends FDA for its ‘‘Draft Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or

Have Note Been Developed Using Bioengineering’’ (66 Fed. Reg.

4839), released on January 18, 2001. The Committee urges FDA to

expeditiously publish a final version of this guidance.

Blood product safety.—The Committee is concerned FDA has not

moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to require manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and prompt patient notification of adverse events. The Committee urges FDA to complete

implementation of this important blood product safety mechanism.

Reused Medical Devices.—It has come to the Committee’s attention that certain reprocessors of medical devices are obtaining devices for reprocessing by sorting through medical waste. The Committee directs FDA to take enforcement action against reprocessors

using inappropriate and unsanitary methods of collection of devices

for reprocessing and to further ensure that all reprocessors are

aware of what constitutes appropriate and sanitary collection.

The Committee recognizes the important role that FDA plays in

ensuring that every medical device used on a patient in the United
145

States is both safe and effective for its intended use. Adhering to

this principle, the FDA has issued new guidance for the reprocessing of single-use medical devices. The Committee is concerned that

the FDA may consider allowing a single premarket submission for

reprocessing of multiple models of a certain medical devices. FDA’s

own research indicates that minor modifications to a device can

substantially alter the device’s properties with regard to sterilization and reprocessing. This was stated by FDA’s own scientists at

the 1999 AAMI/FDA Conference entitled ‘‘The reuse of single-use

devices.’’ Therefore, the Committee urges the FDA to require a premarket submission for every model that is to be reprocessed, if an

application was required for the original manufactured device.

Tissue Processing.—Over the past several years, there has been

a growing concern about the transmission of CJD, vCJD and its related non-human counterpart mad cow disease. Processing multiple

tissues from multiple donors could pose a substantial risk of transmitting CJD to those receiving tissue transplants. Pooling or batch

processing could also result in transmission of many other diseases.

For this reason, the American Association of Tissue Banks prohibits pooling of tissues for its members. The FDA has issued new

rules regarding tissue processing. Those rules include a prohibition

on pooling tissue from multiple donors but allow for a waiver under

certain circumstances. FDA acknowledges that there is no scientific

consensus at the present on how to inactivate CJD prions. Given

this, the Committee believes FDA should consider not granting proposed waivers from the pooling prohibition, unless the patient’s

safety can be guaranteed. The Committee also directs FDA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation prior to

granting such a waiver.

Recently, the FDA instituted new regulations for tissue processors. All tissue banks are now required to register with the FDA.

The number registering is substantially larger than the number

known to exist prior to this rule. This means that a large number

of facilities have been operating without any inspections by the

FDA or another accrediting body. Therefore, the conditions under

which tissues have been processed in these facilities is unknown.

The Committee encourages FDA to move expeditiously to inspect

all tissue facilities that have never been inspected by the agency

by the end of fiscal year 2002.

Office of Generic Drugs.—The Committee remains concerned by

the high price of prescription drugs and the inability of many

Americans to obtain necessary medications without reductions in

other quality of life areas. In order to help provide more accessible

and affordable medications, the Committee supports timely approval of generic drugs and provides $18,100,000, an increase of

$2,700,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level and $2,000,000 more

than the budget request for the Office of Generic Drugs.

Standards of Identity.—The Committee is aware of the ongoing

debate surrounding increased importation and use of milk protein

concentrate. A recent General Accounting Office investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein concentrate imports.

The Committee is concerned with FDA’s current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it relates to the potential illegal

use of milk protein concentrate in standardized cheese. The Com-
146

mittee requests a report on FDA’s current work as it relates to enforcement of standards of identity as it relates to cheese by May

1, 2002.

Office of Women’s Health.—The Committee is concerned that the

FDA has paid insufficient attention to gender-based research. Last

year, GAO reported a serious disproportionate impact on women of

drugs withdrawn from the market for safety reasons. To address

this issue, the Committee directs FDA to continue piloting the drug

application database system that collects demographic information

for specific New Drug Applications (NDAs) in the Center for Drug

Evaluation and Research (CDER). Additionally, the FDA should

study the possibility of developing an Agency-wide system by commencing a capability assessment for each Center and the Office of

the Commissioner to review currently available critical clinical trial

databases, coordinate data collection and identify areas in which

data gaps exist. The Committee directs FDA to provide the Committee with the assessment report of the Agency-wide system and

the status of the pilot program within CDER by June 3, 2002.

Medical Device Application Review.—The Committee is aware

that for the last several years, premarket approval applications for

breakthrough medical technologies have taken more than a year

despite the 180-day statutory maximum for approval or denial of

such applications. Moreover, the medical technology industry has

doubled the investment in research and development in the last

decade. Such research and development investment promises to

yield numerous and dramatic new technologies which must come

through FDA’s review process. As requested in the budget, the

Committee provides an increase of $13,917,000 from the fiscal year

2001 level for FDA’s Devices and Radiological Health program

area. This amount is consistent with agency estimates for bringing

review times within statutory requirements in the short term. The

Center for Devices and Radiological Health is directed to develop

accountability measures to ensure that these funds are used to support sustained progress toward compliance with statutory review

times in the long term.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $31,281,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 34,281,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,281,000

In addition to Washington, D.C., area laboratories which are in

six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other locations

around the country, including regular field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Continued repairs, modifications, improvements

and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be

made to preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet

changing program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its

laboratory methods up to date.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and

facilities, the Committee recommends $34,281,000. This amount is
147

$3,000,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the

budget request. Included in the amount provided is $8,281,000 for repair and im- provement projects; $3,000,000 to continue renovation of the National Center for Toxicology Research; and $23,000,000 to complete

construction of the Los Angeles, CA, replacement laboratory and office space project.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $67,850,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 70,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,400,000

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).

The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7

U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage trading in gold

and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading industry. It established a

comprehensive regulatory structure to oversee the volatile futures

trading complex.

The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade practices, fraud, and

deceit. The objective is to enable the markets to better serve their

designated functions of providing a price discovery mechanism and

providing price risk insurance. In properly serving these functions,

the futures and commodity options markets contribute toward better production and financial planning, more efficient distribution

and consumption, and more economical marketing.

Programs in support of the overall mission include market surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and contract

markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal counsel;

agency direction; and administrative support services. CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional offices located

in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in Kansas City, Los

Angeles, and Minneapolis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee

recommends $70,400,000. The amount provided is $2,550,000 more

than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2001 ..................................................................................... ($36,719,000)

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... (36,700,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (36,700,000)
148

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other

institutions of the Farm Credit System.

Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the institutions.

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of

1971, Public Law 92–181, effective December 10, 1971. Public Law

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers.

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and

future rural credit needs.

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the formation of

the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation [FAMC] to operate

a secondary market for agricultural and rural housing mortgages.

The Farm Credit Administration, under section 8.11 of the Farm

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is assigned the responsibility of

regulating this entity and assuring its safe and sound operation.

Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions and by

assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $36,700,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].

This is $19,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 level and the same

as the budget request.
(149)

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sections 701–731 of the general provisions are essentially the

same as those included in the fiscal year 2001 and previous years’

appropriations acts.

In addition, the Committee recommends the following provisions:

Section 732 to allow the use of remaining Public Law 480 Title

III balances for Title II of the program, notwithstanding Section

412 of Public Law 480.

Section 733 to allow up to $5,000,000 for administrative costs associated with the distribution of commodities. The Committee notes

the high volume of surplus commodities recently made available

through Section 32, and other authorities, and expects the Secretary to make transfers under this section in the event high levels

of surplus commodities continue to be made available.

Section 734 to provide funds to carry out the Conservation Reserve Program. The Committee is aware that the estimated Conservation Reserve Program enrollments in fiscal year 2002 include

816,000 acres of previously enrolled lands which would require

very limited resources for technical assistance. Under the authorities provided by this section, the Secretary is directed that any new

enrollments of Conservation Reserve Program acreage made possible by this section shall be limited to acreage enrolled in continuous sign up, the conservation reserve enhancement program, or

the farmable wetland pilot program.

Section 735 to allow approval of rural development programs for

certain purposes in the city of St. Joseph, Missouri.

Section 736 to amend the Richard B. Russell National School

Lunch Act to allow proprietary centers to participate in the Child

and Adult Care Feeding Program if at least 25 percent of the children served meet the income eligibility criteria for free or reducedprice meals. Section 737 to provide $150,000 for erosion control and channel

bank protection at Mallard Pointe, Madison County, Mississippi.

Section 738 to establish a pilot conservation program in the Illinois River Basin designed to enhance soil, water (including wetlands), and wildlife habitat in the Basin in cooperation with the

State of Illinois. The Secretary should provide a report to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate by December 1,

2001 which outlines the Federal-State plan, Federal funding

sources and levels, and implementation dates for the program. Section 739 to provide $450,000 for a conservation project in the

vicinity of Jamestown, Rhode Island.

Section 740 to provide funds for a rural development project. The

Committee is aware of the economic challenges facing rural America and the added difficulties resulting from rising energy costs.

The Committee encourages the development of business opportunities designed to meet growing energy needs and provides
150

$3,000,000 specifically for the application for development of an agricultural production and energy-related business venture in South

Dakota. The Committee expects that grant funds up to this amount

be made available for purposes of this venture to the extent these

funds are matched by resources from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Department is expected to apply established review procedures when considering this application.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2002, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture,

Rural Development, 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, 2002, 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 Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage

reduction required for fiscal year 2002 pursuant to the provisions

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2002

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies,

as modified by congressional action, and in addition:

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes

and lines of research specifically identified in the reports of the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed

projects as summarized in the notes.

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2002:

Dairy indemnity program; and

Bill Emerson and Mickey LeLand Hunger fellowships.
151

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee ordered

reported, S. 1191, an original Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2002, subject to amendment and subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28–0, a quorum being present. The

vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Mrs. Landrieu

Mr. Reed

Mr. Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
152

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is

printed in italics; and existing law in which no change is proposed

is shown in roman.

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

(a) Grant authority and institution eligibility

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) * * *

* * * * * * *

(B) any other private organization providing nonresidential

child care or day care outside school hours for school children,

if— (i) during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this clause and ending on September 30, ø2001¿

2002, at least 25 percent of the children served by the organization meet the income eligibility criteria established

under section 1758(b) of this title for free or reduced price

meals; or

* * * * * * *
153

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of

amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution

for 2002: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural

Development, and Related Agencies:

General purpose, non-defense ..................... 16,137 16,137 NA NA

General purpose ........................................... NA NA 16,041 1 16,041

Mandatory .................................................... 43,112 43,112 33,847 33,847

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2002 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 2 41,538

2003 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 6,572

2004 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 758

2005 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 401

2006 and future years ................................ .................... .................... .................... 612

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 ................................................ NA 19,744 NA 16,241

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

TITLE I

—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary .......................................................................................... 2,908 2,992 2,992 ∂84 ...........Executive Operations:

Chief Economist ........................................................................................... 7,446 7,648 7,648

∂202 ...........

National Appeals Division ............................................................................ 12,394 12,766 12,766

∂372 ...........

Office of Budget and Program Analysis ...................................................... 6,750 6,978 6,978

∂228 ...........

Office of the Chief Information Officer ........................................................ 10,029 10,261 10,261

∂232 ...........

Common computing environment ....................................................... 39,912 59,369 59,369

∂19,457 ...........

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ........................................................... 5,160 5,335 5,335

∂175 ...........

Total, Executive Operations ..................................................................... 81,691 102,357 102,357

∂20,666 ...........

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ........................................... 628 647 647

∂19 ...........

Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments ................................... 182,345 187,581 187,581

∂5,236 ...........

Payments to GSA .......................................................................................... (125,266) (130,266) (130,266) (

∂5,000) ...........

Building operations and maintenance ......................................................... (31,136) (31,372) (31,372) (

∂236) ...........

Repairs, renovations, and construction ....................................................... (25,943) (25,943) (25,943) .............................. ...........

Hazardous materials management ....................................................................... 15,665 15,665 15,665 .............................. ...........Departmental administration ................................................................................ 35,931 37,079 37,079

∂1,148 ...........

Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers ...................................................... 2,993 2,993 3,493

∂500

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ............................ 3,560 3,684 3,684

∂124 ...........

Office of Communications ..................................................................................... 8,604 8,894 8,894

∂290 ...........

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 68,715 70,839 70,839

∂2,124 ...........

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................................... 31,012 32,627 32,627

∂1,615 ...........
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics .............. 555 573 573

∂18 ...........

Economic Research Service ................................................................................... 66,891 67,200 67,200

∂309 ...........

National Agricultural Statistics Service ................................................................ 100,550 113,786 113,786

∂13,236 ...........

Census of Agriculture ................................................................................... (14,967) (25,350) (25,350) (

∂10,383) ...........

Agricultural Research Service ............................................................................... 896,835 915,591 1,004,738

∂107,903

Buildings and facilities ................................................................................ 74,037 30,462 99,625

∂25,588

Total, Agricultural Research Service ....................................................... 970,872 946,053 1,104,363

∂133,491

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:

Research and education activities .............................................................. 505,079 407,319 542,580

∂37,501

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ........................................... (7,100) (7,100) (7,100) .............................. ...........Extension activities ...................................................................................... 432,475 413,404 434,038

∂1,563

Integrated activities ..................................................................................... 41,849 41,849 42,350

∂501

Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service .. 979,403 862,572 1,018,968

∂39,565

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs .............. 634 654 654

∂20 ...........

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................. 529,397 702,925 602,754

∂73,357

AQI user fees ................................................................................................ (84,813) (84,813) (84,813) .............................. ...........Buildings and facilities ................................................................................ 9,848 5,189 5,189

¥4,659 ...........

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ................................ 539,245 708,114 607,943

∂68,698

Agricultural Marketing Service:

Marketing Services ....................................................................................... 65,191 71,430 71,430

∂6,239 ...........

Standardization user fees ................................................................... (4,000) (5,000) (5,000) (

∂1,000) ...........

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) .................... (60,596) (60,596) (60,596) .............................. ...........Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer from section 32) .................................................................................................... 13,438 13,874 13,874

∂436 ...........

Payments to states and possessions .......................................................... 1,347 1,347 1,347 .............................. ...........

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service ...................................................... 79,976 86,651 86,651

∂6,675 ...........

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................. 31,350 32,907 34,000

∂2,650
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Inspection and weighing services ................................................................ (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) .............................. ...........

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ...................................................... 459 476 476

∂17 ...........

Food Safety and Inspection Service ...................................................................... 695,171 715,542 715,747

∂20,576

Lab accreditation fees 1 ............................................................................... (998) (1,000) (1,000) (

∂2) ...........

Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................................. 695,171 715,542 715,747

∂20,576

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing ......................................... 3,899,158 3,999,886 4,216,219

∂317,061

Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services ......... 588 606 606

∂18 ...........

Farm Service Agency:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................. 826,563 939,030 939,030

∂112,467 ...........

(Transfer from export loans) ........................................................................ (588) (790) (790) (

∂202) ...........

(Transfer from Public Law 480) ................................................................... (813) (972) (972) (

∂159) ...........

(Transfer from ACIF) ..................................................................................... (264,731) (272,595) (272,595) (

∂7,864) ...........

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ........................................... (266,132) (274,357) (274,357) (

∂8,225) ...........

Total, salaries and expenses ................................................................... (1,092,695) (1,213,387) (1,213,387) (

∂120,692) ...........

State mediation grants ................................................................................ 2,993 2,993 3,993

∂1,000

Dairy indemnity program .............................................................................. 450 100 100

¥350 ...........
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ................................................................ 830,006 942,123 943,123

∂113,117

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Farm ownership loans:

Direct .......................................................................................... (127,722) (128,000) (146,966) (

∂19,244) 

Guaranteed ................................................................................. (868,086) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (

∂131,914) ...........

Subtotal .................................................................................. (995,808) (1,128,000) (1,146,966) (

∂151,158) 

Farm operating loans:

Direct .......................................................................................... (522,891) (600,000) (611,198) (

∂88,307) 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ........................................................... (1,075,468) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (

∂424,532) ...........

Subsidized guaranteed ............................................................... (369,100) (500,000) (505,531) (

∂136,431) 

Subtotal .................................................................................. (1,967,459) (2,600,000) (2,616,729) (

∂649,270) 

Indian tribe land acquisition loans .................................................... (2,002) (2,000) (2,000) (

¥2) ...........

Emergency disaster loans ................................................................... (24,947) (25,000) (25,000) (

∂53) ...........

Boll weevil eradication loans .............................................................. (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) .............................. ...........

Total, Loan authorizations .............................................................. (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (

∂800,479) 

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership loans:

Direct .......................................................................................... 13,756 3,366 3,866

¥9,890

Guaranteed ................................................................................. 4,427 4,500 4,500

∂73 ...........

Subtotal .................................................................................. 18,183 7,866 8,366

¥9,817

Farm operating loans:

Direct .......................................................................................... 47,251 53,580 54,580

∂7,329

Unsubsidized guaranteed ........................................................... 14,738 52,650 52,650

∂37,912 ...........

Subsidized guaranteed ............................................................... 30,119 67,800 68,550

∂38,431

Subtotal .................................................................................. 92,108 174,030 175,780

∂83,672

Indian tribe land acquisition .............................................................. 322 118 118

¥204 ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Emergency disaster loans ................................................................... 6,120 3,363 3,363

¥2,757 ...........

Total, Loan subsidies ...................................................................... 116,733 185,377 187,627

∂70,894

ACIF expenses:

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .............................................. 264,731 272,595 272,595

∂7,864 ...........

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 4,130 8,000 8,000

∂3,870 ...........

Total, ACIF expenses ....................................................................... 268,861 280,595 280,595

∂11,734 ...........

Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund ...................................... 385,594 465,972 468,222

∂82,628

(Loan authorization) ............................................................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (

∂800,479) 

Total, Farm Service Agency ............................................................ 1,215,600 1,408,095 1,411,345

∂195,745

Risk Management Agency ..................................................................................... 65,453 74,752 74,752

∂9,299 ...........

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ............................................................ 1,281,641 1,483,453 1,486,703

∂205,062

Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:

Federal crop insurance corporation fund ..................................................... 2,804,660 3,037,000 3,037,000

∂232,340 ...........

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:

Reimbursement for net realized losses ....................................................... 25,264,441 23,116,000 23,116,000

¥2,148,441 ...........
Operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management (limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) .............................. ...........

Total, Corporations .............................................................................. 28,069,101 26,153,000 26,153,000 ¥1,916,101 ...........Total, title I, Agricultural Programs .................................................... 33,249,900 31,636,339 31,855,922 ¥1,393,978 

(By transfer) ............................................................................... (266,132) (274,357) (274,357) (∂8,225) ...........(Loan authorization) ................................................................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (∂800,479) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ................................... (108,059) (108,059) (108,059) .............................. ...........

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment .............. 709 730 730 ∂21 ...........Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Conservation operations ............................................................................... 712,545 773,454 802,454 ∂89,909 Watershed surveys and planning ................................................................. 10,844 10,960 10,960 ∂116 ...........Watershed and flood prevention operations ................................................ 99,224 100,413 100,413 ∂1,189 ...........Watershed rehabilitation program ............................................................... .............................. .............................. 10,000 ∂10,000 Resource conservation and development ..................................................... 41,923 43,048 48,048 ∂6,125 Forestry incentives program ......................................................................... 6,311 .............................. 7,811 ∂1,500 

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ....................................... 870,847 927,875 979,686 ∂108,839 Total, title II, Conservation Programs ..................................................... 871,556 928,605 980,416 ∂108,860 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development .......................................... 604 623 623 ∂19 ...........Rural Development:

Rural community advancement program ..................................................... 760,864 692,125 1,004,125 ∂243,261 (By transfer) ................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. (13,000) (∂13,000) RD expenses:

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................ 130,084 133,722 133,722 ∂3,638 ...........(Transfer from RHIF) ........................................................................... (408,333) (419,741) (422,241) (∂13,908) (Transfer from RDLFP) ......................................................................... (3,632) (3,733) (3,733) (∂101) ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

(Transfer from RETLP) ......................................................................... (34,640) (35,604) (36,000) (

∂1,360) 

(Transfer from RTB) ............................................................................ (2,993) (3,082) (3,082) (

∂89) ...........

(Transfer from TLP) ............................................................................. .............................. .............................. (2,000) (

∂2,000) 

Total, RD expenses ......................................................................... (579,682) (595,882) (600,778) (

∂21,096) 

Total, Rural Development ............................................................... 890,948 825,847 1,137,847

∂246,899

Rural Housing Service:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Single family (sec. 502) ............................................................. (1,064,651) (1,064,650) (1,095,046) (

∂30,395) 

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................. (3,136,429) (3,137,968) (3,137,968) (

∂1,539) ...........

Housing repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... (32,324) (32,324) (32,324) .............................. ...........Rental housing (sec. 515) ......................................................... (114,070) (114,068) (114,068) (

¥2) ...........

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. (5,152) (5,090) (5,090) (

¥62) ...........

Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) ............................. (99,780) (99,770) (99,770) (

¥10) ...........

Multi-family housing credit sales .............................................. (1,779) (1,778) (1,778) (

¥1) ...........

Single family housing credit sales ............................................ (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) .............................. ...........Self-help housing land development fund ................................ (4,998) (5,000) (5,000) (

∂2) ...........

Total, Loan authorizations ..................................................... (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (

∂31,861) 

Loan subsidies:

Single family (sec. 502) ............................................................. 170,983 140,108 144,108

¥26,875

Unsubsidized guaranteed ........................................................... 7,384 40,166 40,166

∂32,782 ...........
Housing repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... 11,456 10,386 10,386

¥1,070 ...........

Rental housing (sec. 515) ......................................................... 56,202 48,274 48,274

¥7,928 ...........

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. .............................. 28 28

∂28 ...........

Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) ............................. 1,517 3,921 3,921

∂2,404 ...........

Multi-family housing credit sales .............................................. 872 750 750

¥122 ...........

Self-help housing land development fund ................................ 278 254 254

¥24 ...........

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................. 248,692 243,887 247,887

¥805

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .................................. 408,333 419,741 422,241

∂13,908

Rental assistance program:

(Sec. 521) ................................................................................... 672,604 687,604 702,604

∂30,000

(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)) ..................................................................... 5,900 5,900 5,900 .............................. ...........

Total, Rental assistance program ......................................... 678,504 693,504 708,504

∂30,000

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund .................................... 1,335,529 1,357,132 1,378,632

∂43,103

(Loan authorization) ...................................................... (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (

∂31,861) 

Mutual and self-help housing grants .......................................................... 33,925 33,925 35,000

∂1,075

Rural housing assistance grants ................................................................. 43,903 38,914 38,914

¥4,989 ...........

Farm labor program account ....................................................................... 29,934 28,431 28,431

¥1,503 ...........

Subtotal, grants and payments ............................................................... 107,762 101,270 102,345

¥5,417

Total, Rural Housing Service ................................................................... 1,443,291 1,458,402 1,480,977

∂37,686

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................ (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (

∂31,861) 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................ (38,172) (38,171) (38,171) (

¥1) ...........

Loan subsidy ....................................................................................... 19,433 16,494 16,494

¥2,939 ...........

Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................... 3,632 3,733 3,733

∂101 ...........

Total, Rural Development Loan Fund ............................................. 23,065 20,227 20,227

¥2,838 ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................ (14,969) (14,966) (14,966) (

¥3) ...........

Direct subsidy ...................................................................................... 3,902 3,616 3,616

¥286 ...........

Rural cooperative development grants ........................................................ 6,486 6,486 8,000

∂1,514

Rural empowerment zones and enterprise community grants .................... .............................. 14,967 14,967

∂14,967 ...........

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service .............................................. 33,453 45,296 46,810

∂13,357

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................ (53,141) (53,137) (53,137) (

¥4) ...........

Rural Utilities Service:

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................................... (121,128) (121,107) (121,107) (

¥21) ...........

Direct, Municipal rate ....................................................... (294,358) (294,358) (500,000) (

∂205,642) (

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (2,600,000) (

∂1,000,000) (

∂

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... (500,000) (500,000) (750,000) (

∂250,000) (

Guaranteed electric ........................................................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) .............................. ...........

Subtotal ......................................................................... (2,615,486) (2,615,465) (4,071,107) (

∂1,455,621) (

∂

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................................... (74,835) (74,827) (74,827) (

¥8) ...........

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) .............................. ...........Direct, FFB ......................................................................... (120,000) (120,000) (120,000) .............................. ...........
Subtotal ......................................................................... (494,835) (494,827) (494,827) (

¥8) ...........

Total, Loan authorizations ............................................ (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934) (

∂1,455,613) (

∂

Loan subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................................... 12,064 3,609 3,609

¥8,455 ...........

Guaranteed electric ........................................................... 10 80 80

∂70 ...........

Direct, Municipal rate ....................................................... 20,458 .............................. ..............................

¥20,458 ...........

Subtotal ......................................................................... 32,532 3,689 3,689

¥28,843 ...........

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent ............................................................... 7,753 1,736 1,736

¥6,017 ...........

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... .............................. 300 300

∂300 ...........

Subtotal ......................................................................... 7,753 2,036 2,036

¥5,717 ...........

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................... 40,285 5,725 5,725

¥34,560 ...........

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ...................... 34,640 35,604 36,000

∂1,360

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans

Program Account ............................................................... 74,925 41,329 41,725

¥33,200

(Loan authorization) ...................................................... (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934) (

∂1,455,613) (

∂

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................ (174,615) .............................. (174,615) .............................. (Direct loan subsidy ............................................................................. 2,584 .............................. 3,737

∂1,153

RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ................................... 2,993 3,082 3,082

∂89 ...........

Total ................................................................................................ 5,577 3,082 6,819

∂1,242

High energy costs grants (by transfer) ....................................................... .............................. (24,000) (24,000) (

∂24,000) ...........

Distance learning and telemedicine program:

Distance learning and telemedicine direct loan ................................ (400,000) (300,000) (300,000) (

¥100,000) ...........

Broadband telecommunications direct loans ..................................... .............................. (100,000) (100,000) (

∂100,000) ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Grants/loans subsidy costs ................................................................. 26,941 26,941 51,941

∂25,000

Local Television loan program account:

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................ .............................. .............................. (322,580) (

∂322,580) (

Direct loan subsidy ............................................................................. .............................. .............................. 25,000

∂25,000

LTLP administration expenses (transfer to RD) .................................. .............................. .............................. 2,000

∂2,000

Total, Rural Utilities Service ........................................................... 107,443 71,352 127,485

∂20,042

(Loan authorization) ............................................................... (3,684,936) (3,510,292) (5,463,129) (

∂1,778,193) (

∂

Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community Development Programs ......................................................................................... 2,475,739 2,401,520 2,793,742

∂318,003

(By transfer) ........................................................................... (449,598) (486,160) (504,056) (

∂54,458) 

(Loan authorization) ............................................................... (8,207,260) (8,034,077) (10,017,310) (

∂1,810,050) (

∂

TITLE IV

—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services ......... 569 587 587

∂18 ...........

Food and Nutrition Service:

Child nutrition programs .............................................................................. 4,407,445 4,729,490 4,746,038

∂338,593

Transfer from section 32 .................................................................... 5,127,579 5,357,256 5,340,708

∂213,129

Discretionary spending ........................................................................ 6,486 2,000 500

¥5,986

Total, Child nutrition programs ...................................................... 9,541,510 10,088,746 10,087,246

∂545,736
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children

(WIC) ........................................................................................................ 4,043,086 4,137,086 4,247,086 ∂204,000 

Food stamp program:

Expenses .............................................................................................. 18,618,228 19,556,436 19,556,436 ∂938,208 ...........Reserve ................................................................................................ 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 .............................. Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico ................................................... 1,301,000 1,335,550 1,335,550 ∂34,550 ...........The emergency food assistance program ........................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000 .............................. ...........

Total, Food stamp program ............................................................ 20,119,228 21,991,986 21,091,986 ∂972,758 

Commodity assistance program ................................................................... 139,991 139,991 139,991 .............................. ...........

Rescission ............................................................................................ .............................. ¥5,300 ¥5,300 ¥5,300 ...........

Food donations programs:

Needy family program ......................................................................... 1,081 1,081 1,081 .............................. ...........Elderly feeding program ...................................................................... 149,668 149,668 149,668 .............................. ...........

Total, Food donations programs ..................................................... 150,749 150,749 150,749 .............................. ...........

Food program administration ....................................................................... 116,550 125,546 127,546 ∂10,996 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ............................................................ 34,111,114 36,628,804 35,839,304 ∂1,728,190 Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs .................................................. 34,111,683 36,629,391 35,839,891 ∂1,728,208 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ............................................... 115,170 121,563 121,563 ∂6,393 ...........(Transfer from export loans) ........................................................................ (3,224) (3,224) (3,224) .............................. ...........(Transfer from Public Law 480) ................................................................... (1,033) (1,033) (1,033) .............................. ...........

Total, Program level ................................................................................. (119,427) (125,820) (125,820) (∂6,393) ...........

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:

Program account:

Loan authorization, direct 2 ................................................................. (159,327) (139,399) (159,327) .............................. 
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Loan subsidy ....................................................................................... 113,935 113,935 130,218

∂16,283

Ocean freight differential .................................................................... 20,277 20,277 20,277 .............................. ...........

Title II

—Commodities for disposition abroad:

Program level ...................................................................................... (835,159) (835,159) (850,000) (

∂14,841) 

Appropriation ....................................................................................... 835,159 835,159 850,000

∂14,841

Salaries and expenses:

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) ........................................... 1,033 1,033 1,033 .............................. ...........Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) ............................................... 813 972 972

∂159 ...........

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 1,846 2,005 2,005

∂159 ...........

Total, Public Law 480:

Program level ......................................................................... (835,159) (835,159) (850,000) (

∂14,841) 

Appropriation .......................................................................... 971,217 971,376 1,002,500

∂31,283

CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses):

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) ........................................... 3,224 3,224 3,224 .............................. ...........Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) ............................................... 588 790 790

∂202 ...........

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account .................................... 3,812 4,014 4,014

∂202 ...........

Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs .............. 1,090,199 1,096,953 1,128,077

∂37,878

(By transfer) ........................................................................... (4,257) (4,257) (4,257) .............................. ...........
TITLE VI—FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ........................................................ 1,066,173 1,173,673 1,182,670 ∂116,497 

Prescriptions drug user fee act—fee collections ........................................ (149,273) (161,716) (161,716) (∂12,443) ...........

Subtotal .................................................................................................... (1,215,446) (1,335,389) (1,344,386) (∂128,940) 

Mammography clinics inspection fee collections ........................................ (15,128) (15,590) (15,590) (∂462) ...........Export and certification fee collections ....................................................... (5,992) (6,181) (6,181) (∂189) ...........Limitation on payments to GSA ................................................................... (104,736) (105,116) (105,116) (∂380) ...........Drug reimportation ....................................................................................... .............................. 2,950 .............................. .............................. 

Buildings and facilities ......................................................................................... 31,281 34,281 34,281 ∂3,000 ...........

Total, Food and Drug Administration ...................................................... 1,097,454 1,210,904 1,216,951 ∂119,497 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ............................................................. 67,850 70,400 70,400 ∂2,550 ...........Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) .................. (36,719) (36,700) (36,700) (¥19) ...........

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration .... 1,165,304 1,281,304 1,287,351 ∂122,047 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships (sec. 730) .............................................................................. 1,996 1,996 1,996 .............................. ...........National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund .............................. 5,000 .............................. .............................. ¥5,000 ...........FDA Drug reimportation (sec. 745) ....................................................................... 22,949 .............................. .............................. ¥22,949 ...........Limit crop insurance education ............................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ...........Mallard Pointe conservation .................................................................................. .............................. .............................. 150 ∂150 Jamestown conservation ........................................................................................ .............................. .............................. 450 ∂450 Child and adult care feeding program ................................................................. .............................. .............................. 10,000 ∂10,000 CCC Apple market loss ......................................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Total, title VII, General provisions ........................................................... 29,945 1,996 12,596

¥17,349

TITLE VIII

—FISCAL YEAR 2001

NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND OTHER

EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Chief Information Officer: Common computing environment (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................... 19,457 .............................. ..............................

¥19,457 ...........

Departmental administration (contingent emergency appropriations) ................. 200 .............................. ..............................

¥200 ...........

Farm Service Agency

Salaries and expenses (contingent emergency appropriations) ........................... 49,890 .............................. ..............................

¥49,890 ...........

Emergency conservation program (contingent emergency appropriations) .......... 79,824 .............................. ..............................

¥79,824 ...........

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Federal crop insurance corporation fund (emergency appropriations) ................ 12,971 .............................. ..............................

¥12,971 ...........

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Watershed and flood prevention operations (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. 109,758 .............................. ..............................

¥109,758 ...........
Rural Development

Rural community advancement program (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. 199,560 .............................. .............................. ¥199,560 ...........

Total, Department of Agriculture ............................................................. 471,660 .............................. .............................. ¥471,660 ...........

General Provisions

Conservation technical assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ........ 34,923 .............................. .............................. ¥34,923 ...........CCC Disease loss compensation (contingent emergency appropriations) ........... 19,000 .............................. .............................. ¥19,000 ...........Dairy assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) .................................... 473,000 .............................. .............................. ¥473,000 ...........CCC Livestock assistance program (contingent emergency appropriations) ....... 488,922 .............................. .............................. ¥488,922 ...........WRP Additional acreage enrollments (contingent emergency appropriations) .... 117,000 .............................. .............................. ¥117,000 ...........CCC Sheep loss assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ................... 2,395 .............................. .............................. ¥2,395 ...........CCC Citrus canker compensation (contingent emergency appropriations) .......... 57,872 .............................. .............................. ¥57,872 ...........CCC Apple/potatoes market loss and quality (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. 137,696 .............................. .............................. ¥137,696 ...........CCC Honey assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ........................... 20,000 .............................. .............................. ¥20,000 ...........CCC Livestock indemnity program (contingent emergency appropriations) ........ 9,978 .............................. .............................. ¥9,978 ...........CCC Wool/mohair assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ................. 19,956 .............................. .............................. ¥19,956 ...........CCC Crop loss disaster assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ....... 1,622,000 .............................. .............................. ¥1,622,000 ...........CCC Cranberry assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ..................... 19,956 .............................. .............................. ¥19,956 ...........Shared appreciation loan arrangements (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. 2,000 .............................. .............................. ¥2,000 ...........SC grain dealer’s guarantee fund (contingent emergency appropriations) ......... 2,495 .............................. .............................. ¥2,495 ...........Puerto Rico food stamp block grant ..................................................................... ¥5,000 .............................. .............................. ∂5,000 ...........Hawaii sugar transportation cost assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. 7,184 .............................. .............................. ¥7,184 ...........Rural development cooperative grants (contingent emergency appropriations) .. 9,978 .............................. .............................. ¥9,978 ...........Business and industry loans:

(Loan authorization) ..................................................................................... (1,160,232) .............................. .............................. (¥1,160,232) ...........Loan subsidy (contingent emergency appropriations) ................................. 9,978 .............................. .............................. ¥9,978 ...........

CCC Tobacco quota compensation (contingent emergency appropriations) ........ 3,000 .............................. .............................. ¥3,000 ...........CCC Cooperative assistance (contingent emergency appropriations) .................. 19,956 .............................. .............................. ¥19,956 ...........CCC Burley tobacco (contingent emergency appropriations) ............................... 50,000 .............................. .............................. ¥50,000 ...........CCC LDP delinquent borrower (contingent emergency appropriations) ............... 5,000 .............................. .............................. ¥5,000 ...........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommenda

pared with (∂ or ¥

2001

appropriation Budge

Food stamp excess shelter allowance (contingent emergency appropriations) ... 15,000 .............................. ..............................

¥15,000 ...........

Food stamp vehicle allowance (contingent emergency appropriations) .............. 25,000 .............................. ..............................

¥25,000 ...........

Total, General Provisions ......................................................................... 3,167,289 .............................. ..............................

¥3,167,289 ...........

Total, title VIII, FISCAL YEAR 2001 ......................................................... 3,638,949 .............................. ..............................

¥3,638,949 ...........

TITLE X

—ANTI-DUMPING

Anti-dumping ......................................................................................................... 39,912 .............................. ..............................

¥39,912 ...........

Grand total:

New budget (obligational) authority ............................................... 76,673,187 73,976,108 73,897,995

¥2,775,192

Appropriations ........................................................................ (73,029,238) (73,981,408) (73,903,295) (

∂874,057) 

Rescission .............................................................................. .............................. (

¥5,300) (

¥5,300) (

¥5,300) ...........

Emergency appropriations ..................................................... (12,971) .............................. .............................. (

¥12,971) ...........

Contingent emergency appropriations ................................... (3,630,978) .............................. .............................. (

¥3,630,978) ...........

(By transfer) .................................................................................... (719,987) (764,774) (782,670) (

∂62,683) 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................ (11,456,803) (12,028,476) (14,067,332) (

∂2,610,529) (

∂

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ........................................ (144,778) (144,759) (144,759) (

¥19) ...........

RECAPITULATION

Title I

—Agricultural programs .............................................................................. 33,249,900 31,636,339 31,855,922

¥1,393,978

Title II

—Conservation programs ........................................................................... 871,556 928,605 980,416

∂108,860

Title III

—Rural economic and community development programs ...................... 2,475,739 2,401,520 2,793,742

∂318,003
Title IV—Domestic food programs ....................................................................... 34,111,683 36,629,391 35,839,891 ∂1,728,208 Title V—Foreign assistance and related programs ............................................. 1,090,199 1,096,953 1,128,077 ∂37,878 Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration .......................... 1,165,304 1,281,304 1,287,351 ∂122,047 Title VII—General provisions ................................................................................ 29,945 1,996 12,596 ¥17,349 Title VIII, fiscal year 2001 .................................................................................... 3,638,949 .............................. .............................. ¥3,638,949 ...........Title X, Anti-dumping ............................................................................................ 39,912 .............................. .............................. ¥39,912 ...........

Total, new budget (obligational) authority .............................................. 76,673,187 73,976,108 73,897,995 ¥2,775,192 

1 In addition to appropriation.2 Public Law 480 program level of $159,676,000 for fiscal year 2002 combines direct loan level and ocean freight differential.

Æ