```

[Senate Report 107-41]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        Calendar No. 91
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     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

                              R E P O R T

                         [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.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          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
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

                           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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2002 Committee
                                         2001 \1\        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           2,475,739,000      2,793,742,000
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     34,111,683,000     35,839,891,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and         1,090,199,000      1,128,077,000
 related programs.................
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                73,029,238,000     73,899,995,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554 and excludes
  emergency appropriations.

                    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 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.

                     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 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 drought-
stricken 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 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.

                       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 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).

                 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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 2002 budget        Committee
                                                              2001 estimate        request       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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     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.

                       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-by-agency distribution of the funds.

                        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 program-related 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.

                     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 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 consolidate 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 improve the Nation's 
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural 
products by observing practices that will maintain a 
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the 
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve 
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's 
balance of payments.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    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 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 diagnosis, 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 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 long-
term 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.
    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 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 
value-added 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 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 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 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 implement 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.
    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.
    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 
resulted 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 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.
    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 
glassy-winged 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 glassy-winged 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.
    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/Mid-South 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 Pasture-Based 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 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 not meet national demands. The shellfish 
industry requires a long-term 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 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 
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.
    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:

                      ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--
                               --------------------------    Committee
      State and facility            2001     2002 budget  recommendation
                                  enacted      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation           4,989  ...........  ..............
 and Western Cotton
 Laboratory, Maricopa.........
California:
    Western Human Nutrition     ...........        5,000          5,000
     Research Center, Davis...
    Western Regional Research         4,889        3,800          2,000
     Center, Albany...........
District of Columbia: U.S.            3,323        4,600  ..............
 National Arboretum...........
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin            4,989  ...........          3,000
 Agricultural Research Center.
Idaho: Advanced Genetics        ...........  ...........            500
 Laboratory, Aberdeen.........
Illinois:
    National Center for         ...........        6,500          6,500
     Agricultural Utilization
     Research, Peoria.........
    USDA greenhouse complex,          3,592  ...........  ..............
     Urbana...................
Iowa: National Animal Disease         8,980  ...........         40,000
 Center, Ames.................
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing          3,492  ...........          3,000
 Research Laboratory, Manhat-
 tan..........................
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold          2,495  ...........          3,000
 Water Aquaculture Research
 Center, Orono................
Maryland:
    Beltsville Agricultural          13,271  ...........          3,000
     Research Center,
     Beltsville...............
    National Agricultural             1,766        1,800  ..............
     Library, Beltsville......
Minnesota: Cereal Disease       ...........  ...........            300
 Laboratory, St. Paul.........
Mississippi:
    National Biological               4,989  ...........          8,400
     Control Laboratory,
     Stoneville...............
    Mid South Horticultural     ...........  ...........            800
     Laboratory, Poplarville..
Montana: Fort Keogh                   5,288  ...........  ..............
 Laboratory, Miles City.......
New York: Plum Island Animal          6,985        3,762          3,000
 Disease Center, Greenport....
New Mexico: Jornada             ...........  ...........            475
 Experimental Range Management
 Research Laboratory, Las
 Cruces.......................
Oklahoma: Southern Plains       ...........  ...........          1,500
 Range Research Station, Wood-
  ward........................
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional  ...........        5,000          3,000
 Research Center, Philadelphia
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable  ...........  ...........          4,500
 Laboratory, Charleston.......
South Dakota: Northern Grain    ...........  ...........            850
 Insects Research Laboratory,
 Brookings....................
Utah: Poisonous Plant                 4,989  ...........          5,600
 Laboratory, Logan............
West Virginia: National Center  ...........  ...........          2,200
 for Cool and Cold Water
 Aquaculture, Leetown.........
Wisconsin: Cereal Crops         ...........  ...........          3,000
 Laboratory, Madison..........
                               -----------------------------------------
      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 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

    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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Committee
                                      2001      2002 budget   recommen-
                                 appropriation                  dation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch act.......       180,148      180,148      180,148
Cooperative forestry research          21,884       21,884       21,884
 (McIntire-Stennis)............
Payments to 1890 colleges and          32,604       32,604       32,604
 Tuskegee University...........
Special research grants (Public
 Law 89-106):
    Advanced genetic                      474   ...........         750
     technologies (KY).........
    Advanced spatial                      998   ...........         998
     technologies (MS).........
    Aegilops cylindricum (WA)..           359   ...........         359
    Aflatoxin (IL).............           131   ...........  ...........
    Agricultural                          131   ...........         131
     diversification (HI)......
    Agricultural diversity--Red           374   ...........         374
     River Trade Corridor (MN,
     ND).......................
    Agricultural                          424   ...........  ...........
     telecommunications (NY)...
    Agriculture-based                     349   ...........         349
     industrial lubricants (IA)
    Agriculture water usage               299   ...........         299
     (GA)......................
    Agroecology (MD)...........           284   ...........  ...........
    Air quality (TX)...........  .............  ...........         800
    Alliance for food                     299   ...........         299
     protection (GA, NE).......
    Alternative crops (ND).....           624   ...........  ...........
    Alternative crops for arid            100   ...........  ...........
     lands (TX)................
    Alternative nutrient                  190   ...........         190
     management (VT)...........
    Alternative salmon products           644   ...........         644
     (AK)......................
    Alternative uses for         .............  ...........         450
     tobacco (MD)..............
    Animal science food safety          1,631   ...........       1,631
     consortium (AR, IA, KS)...
    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               748   ...........         748
     marketing development (WV)
    Armillaria root rot (MI)...  .............  ...........         200
    Asparagus technology and              225   ...........         325
     production (WA)...........
    Babcock Institute (WI).....           599   ...........         599
    Beef technology transfer              284   ...........         300
     (MO)......................
    Biobased technology (MI)...           284   ...........  ...........
    Bioinformatics (VA)........           474   ...........  ...........
    Biomass-based energy                  900   ...........       1,200
     reserach (OK, MS).........
    Biotechnology (NC).........           284   ...........         383
    Blocking anhydrous                    247   ...........         247
     methamphetamine production
     (IA)......................
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)...           324   ...........         324
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)...           495   ...........         495
    Center for animal health              113   ...........  ...........
     and productivity (PA).....
    Center for Rural Studies              200   ...........         300
     (VT)......................
    Chesapeake Bay agroecology            175   ...........         350
     (MD)......................
    Chesapeake Bay aquaculture.           391   ...........  ...........
    Citrus canker (FL).........         4,740   ...........  ...........
    Citrus tristeza............           740   ...........  ...........
    Competitiveness of                    679   ...........         679
     agriculture products (WA).
    Cool season legume research           328   ...........         328
     (ID, WA)..................
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)...           175   ...........         175
    Cranberry/blueberry disease           220   ...........         220
     and breeding (NJ).........
    Crop genomics (MS).........  .............  ...........         800
    Crop integration and         .............  ...........         250
     production (SD)...........
    Crop diversification (ND,    .............  ...........       1,000
     MO).......................
    Dairy and meat goat                    63   ...........          63
     research (TX).............
    Dairy farm profitability              284   ...........         300
     (PA)......................
    Delta rural revitalization            205   ...........         205
     (MS)......................
    Designing foods for health            562   ...........         862
     (TX)......................
    Diaprepes/root weevil (FL).           394   ...........  ...........
    Drought mitigation (NE)....           200   ...........         200
    Ecosystems (AL)............           499   ...........  ...........
    Efficient irrigation (NM,           1,185   ...........       1,185
     TX).......................
    Environmental biotechnology           190   ...........         190
     (RI)......................
    Environmental horticulture            284   ...........  ...........
     (FL)......................
    Environmental research (NY)           399   ...........  ...........
    Environmental risk factors/           227   ...........  ...........
     cancer (NY)...............
    Environmentally-safe                  245   ...........         245
     products (VT).............
    Exotic pest diseases (CA)..         1,247   ...........       1,500
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)           292   ...........         292
    Farm injuries and illnesses           284   ...........  ...........
     (NC)......................
    Feed barley for rangeland             692   ...........         850
     cattle (MT)...............
    Feedstock conversion (SD)..  .............  ...........         700
    Fish and shellfish                    474   ...........  ...........
     technologies (VA).........
    Floriculture (HI)..........           249   ...........         500
    Food and Agriculture Policy           948   ...........       1,250
     Research Institute (IA,
     MO).......................
    Food irradiation (IA)......           225   ...........         225
    Food Marketing Policy                 494   ...........         494
     Center (CT)...............
    Food processing center (NE)            42   ...........          42
    Food quality (AK)..........           349   ...........         349
    Food safety (AL)...........           520   ...........         620
    Food safety research                  284   ...........  ...........
     consortium (NY)...........
    Food safety risk assessment  .............  ...........       1,000
     (ND)......................
    Food Systems Research Group           499   ...........         499
     (WI)......................
    Forages for advancing                 374   ...........         374
     livestock production (KY).
    Forestry (AR)..............           522   ...........  ...........
    Fruit and vegetable market            347   ...........  ...........
     analysis (AZ, MO).........
    Generic commodity                     198   ...........  ...........
     promotions, research and
     evaluation  (NY)..........
    Global change/ultraviolet           1,431        1,431        1,431
     radiation.................
    Grain sorghum (KS).........           106   ...........         106
    Grass seed cropping systems           422   ...........         422
     for sustainable
     agriculture (ID, OR, WA)..
    Hoop barns (IA)............  .............  ...........         250
    Human nutrition (IA).......           472   ...........         472
    Human nutrition (LA).......           750   ...........       1,000
    Human nutrition (NY).......           621   ...........  ...........
    Hydroponic tomato                     100   ...........  ...........
     production (OH)...........
    Illinois/Missouri Alliance          1,239   ...........       1,239
     for Biotechnology.........
    Improved dairy management             397   ...........         397
     practices (PA)............
    Improved early detection of           198   ...........         198
     crop disease (NC).........
    Improved fruit practices              444   ...........         244
     (MI)......................
    Increasing shelf life of     .............  ...........         800
     agricultural commodities
     (ID)......................
    Infectious disease research           299   ...........         800
     (CO)......................
    Institute for Food Science          1,247   ...........       1,247
     and Engineering (AR)......
    Integrated production                 180   ...........         180
     systems (OK)..............
    Intelligent quality sensor            142   ...........         450
     for food safety (ND)......
    International arid lands              494   ...........  ...........
     consortium................
    Iowa Biotechnology                  1,561   ...........       1,561
     Consortium................
    Livestock and dairy policy            569   ...........         569
     (NY, TX)..................
    Lowbush blueberry research            259   ...........         259
     (ME)......................
    Maple research (VT)........           119   ...........         150
    Meadowfoam (OR)............           299   ...........         299
    Michigan biotechnology                723   ...........  ...........
     consortium................
    Midwest Advanced Food                 461   ...........         461
     Manufacturing Alliance....
    Midwest agricultural                  645   ...........         645
     products (IA).............
    Milk safety (PA)...........           374   ...........         750
    Minor use animal drugs (IR-           549          549          735
     4)........................
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)...           399   ...........         399
    Montana Sheep Institute....  .............  ...........         500
    Multi-commodity research              363   ...........         363
     (OR)......................
    Multi-cropping strategies             127   ...........         127
     for aquaculture (HI)......
    National beef cattle                  284   ...........  ...........
     genetic evaluation
     consortium (NY)...........
    National biological impact            253          253          253
     assessment program........
    Nematode resistance genetic           127   ...........         150
     engineering (NM)..........
    Nevada arid rangelands                299   ...........         500
     initiative (NV)...........
    New crop opportunities (AK)           495   ...........         495
    New crop opportunities (KY)           723   ...........         750
    Non-food uses of                       64   ...........          64
     agricultural products (NE)
    Nursery, greenhouse, and              284   ...........  ...........
     turf specialities (AL)....
    Oil resources from desert             175   ...........         200
     plants (NM)...............
    Organic waste utilization             100   ...........         100
     (NM)......................
    Ozone air quality (CA).....  .............  ...........         500
    Pasture and forage research           249   ...........         249
     (UT)......................
    Peach tree short life (SC).           179   ...........         179
    Peanut allergy reduction              499   ...........  ...........
     (AL)......................
    Pest control alternatives             117   ...........         350
     (SC)......................
    Phytophthora root rot (NM).           138   ...........         138
    Phytoremediation plant       .............  ...........         350
     research (OH).............
    Pierce's disease (CA)......         1,896   ...........       1,500
    Plant, drought, and disease           249   ...........         249
     resistance gene cataloging
     (NM)......................
    Potato research............         1,447   ...........       1,600
    Precision agriculture (KY).           748   ...........         748
    Preharvest food safety (KS)           212   ...........         212
    Preservation and processing           226   ...........         226
     research (OK).............
    Produce pricing (AZ).......            76   ...........  ...........
    Protein utilization (IA)...           190   ...........         190
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM)..           299   ...........         400
    Red snapper research (AL)..           723   ...........  ...........
    Regional barley gene                  587   ...........         950
     mapping project...........
    Regionalized implications             293   ...........         293
     of farm programs (MO,TX)..
    Rice modeling (AR).........           295   ...........  ...........
    Ruminant nutrition           .............  ...........         500
     consortium (MT, ND, SD,
     WY).......................
    Rural Development Centers             522          522          600
     (PA, IA, ND, MS, OR, LA)..
    Rural Policies Research               820   ...........         820
     Institute (NE, IA, MO)....
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)...           249   ...........         400
    Safe vegetable production             284   ...........  ...........
     (GA)......................
    Satsuma orange research               474   ...........         500
     (AL)......................
    Sclerotina disease research           237   ...........  ...........
     (MN)......................
    Seafood and aquaculture               304   ...........         304
     harvesting, processing,
     and marketing (MS)........
    Seafood harvesting,                 1,165   ...........       1,165
     processing, and marketing
     (AK)......................
    Seafood safety (MA)........           277   ...........         277
    Small fruit research (OR,             324   ...........         400
     WA, ID)...................
    Soil and environmental       .............  ...........         150
     quality (DE)..............
    Southwest consortium for              368   ...........         368
     plant genetics & water re-
      sources..................
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO).           599   ...........         700
    Soybean research (IL)......  .............  ...........       1,000
    STEEP--water quality in               499   ...........         499
     Pacific Northwest.........
    Sustainable agriculture               392   ...........  ...........
     (CA)......................
    Sustainable agriculture               444   ...........         444
     (MI)......................
    Sustainable agriculture and           100   ...........         125
     natural resources (PA)....
    Sustainable agriculture                59   ...........          59
     systems (NE)..............
    Sustainable beef supply               742   ...........       1,250
     (MT)......................
    Sustainable engineered       .............  ...........         474
     materials from renewable
     resources (VA)............
    Sustainable pest management           461   ...........         461
     for dryland wheat (MT)....
    Synthetic gene technology    .............  ...........         210
     (OH)......................
    Swine waste management (NC)           499   ...........         400
    Technological development             284   ...........  ...........
     of renewable resources
     (MO)......................
    Tillage, silviculture,                212   ...........         500
     waste management (LA).....
    Tomato wilt virus (GA).....           249   ...........  ...........
    Tropical aquaculture (FL)..           198   ...........  ...........
    Tropical and subtropical            3,854   ...........       3,854
     research/T STAR...........
    Tri-state joint peanut       .............  ...........         750
     research (AL).............
    Turkey carna virus (IN)....           200   ...........  ...........
    Value-added product                   331   ...........         331
     development from
     agricultural resources
     (MT)......................
    Value-added products (IL)..            95   ...........  ...........
    Vidalia onions (GA)........           249   ...........  ...........
    Viticulture consortium (NY,         1,497   ...........       2,000
     CA, PA,)..................
    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,           5,773   ...........       5,786
     MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID,
     TN).......................
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY).           299   ...........         299
                                ----------------------------------------
          Total, special           \1\ 85,481        2,755       84,040
           research grants.....
                                ========================================
Improved pest control:
    Emerging pests/critical               200          200          200
     issues....................
    Expert IPM decision support           177          177          177
     system....................
    Integrated pest management.         2,725        2,725        2,725
    IR-4 minor crop pest                8,970        8,970        9,970
     management................
    Pest management                     1,619        1,619        1,619
     alternatives..............
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest             13,691       13,691       14,691
       control.................
                                ========================================
National Research Initiative          105,767      105,767      137,000
 (NRI) Competitive Grants......
                                ========================================
Animal health and disease (sec.         5,098        5,098        5,098
 1433).........................
Alternative crops..............           798   ...........         898
Critical Agricultural Materials           639   ...........         800
 Act...........................
1994 Institutions research                998          998          998
 program.......................
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          3,492        3,492        3,492
 grants........................
Capacity building grants (1890          9,479        9,479        9,479
 Institutions).................
Payments to the 1994                    1,549        1,549        1,549
 Institutions..................
Alaska Native-serving and               2,993        2,993        3,000
 Native Hawaiian-serving
 Institutions grants...........
Secondary agriculture education           798          798        1,000
Sustainable agriculture                 9,230        9,230       13,000
 research and education/SARE...
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)         3,991        3,991        4,000
Federal administration:
    Agriculture development in            563   ...........         563
     the American Pacific......
    Agriculture waste                     495   ...........         750
     utilization (WV)..........
    Agriculture water policy              365   ...........         365
     (GA)......................
    Alternative fuels                     258   ...........         258
     characterization
     laboratory (ND)...........
    Animal waste management               274   ...........         400
     (OK)......................
    Aquaculture (OH)...........  .............  ...........         500
    Biotechnology (MS).........           590   ...........         850
    Botanical research (UT)....  .............  ...........         800
    Center for Agricultural and           427   ...........         427
     Rural Development (IA)....
    Center for innovative food            759   ...........         759
     technology (OH)...........
    Center for North American              87   ...........          87
     Studies (TX)..............
    Climate change research               170   ...........  ...........
     (FL)......................
    Cotton research (TX).......           499   ...........       1,100
    Data Information system....         2,120        2,120        2,120
    Feed efficiency (WV).......  .............  ...........         200
    Geographic information              1,023   ...........       1,223
     system....................
    Germplasm development in              100   ...........  ...........
     forage grasses (OH).......
    Livestock marketing                   185   ...........         200
     information center (CO)...
    Mariculture (NC)...........           324   ...........         450
    Mississippi Valley State              646   ...........         646
     University................
    National Center for Peanut            399   ...........         399
     Competitiveness (GA)......
    Office of Extramural                  448          448          448
     Programs..................
    Pay costs and FERS.........         1,098        1,594        1,594
    Peer panels................           349          349          349
    PM-10 air quality study               435   ...........  ...........
     (WA)......................
    Precision agriculture/                586   ...........  ...........
     Geospatial Training and
     Application Center (AL)...
    Precision agriculture/                147   ...........         600
     Tennessee Valley Research
     and Extension Center (AL).
    Salmon quality standards     .............  ...........         150
     (AK)......................
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI,         4,168   ...........       4,300
     MA, MS, SC, TX)...........
    Sustainable agriculture               474   ...........  ...........
     development (OH)..........
    Urban silviculture (NY)....           237   ...........  ...........
    Water quality (IL).........           348   ...........         348
    Water quality (ND).........           394   ...........         425
    Water pollutants (WV)......  .............  ...........         257
    Wetland plants (WV)........           142   ...........  ...........
                                ----------------------------------------
          Total, Federal           \1\ 18,108        4,511       20,568
           administration......
                                ========================================
          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 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.
    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 land-
grant 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 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:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    2001     Fiscal year     Committee
                                  enacted    2002 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and       275,940      275,940        275,940
 3(c).........................
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety...............        3,991  ...........          4,700
    Food and nutrition               58,566       58,566         58,566
     education................
    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                   499          499            499
     education and
     certification............
Renewable Resources Extension         3,185        3,185          5,000
 Act..........................
1890 colleges and Tuskegee           28,181       28,181         28,181
 University...................
1890 facilities grants........       12,173       12,173         13,500
Rural health and safety               2,622  ...........          2,622
 education....................
Extension services at the 1994        3,273        3,273          3,273
 institutions.................
                               -----------------------------------------
      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          197  ...........            197
     (AR).....................
    Botanical garden                    237  ...........            237
     initiative (IL)..........
    Conservation technology             474  ...........            500
     transfer (WI)............
    Dairy education (IA)......          237  ...........            237
    Delta Teachers Academy....        3,492  ...........          3,492
    Diabetes detection,                 924  ...........  ..............
     prevention (WA)..........
    Extension specialist (MS).          100  ...........            100
    Efficient irrigation (NM/         1,896  ...........  ..............
     TX)......................
    Family farm beef industry         1,317  ...........  ..............
     network (OH).............
    Food Animal Residue                 284  ...........  ..............
     Avoidance Database/FARAD.
    Food Electronically and             167  ...........  ..............
     Effectively Distributed
     (FEED) demonstration
     project (OR).............
    Food product development    ...........  ...........            350
     (AK).....................
    Health education            ...........  ...........          1,000
     leadership (KY)..........
    Income enhancement                  245  ...........  ..............
     demonstration (OH).......
    Integrated cow/calf                 284  ...........  ..............
     management (IA)..........
    Iowa vitality center......  ...........  ...........            350
    National Center for                 195  ...........            195
     Agriculture Safety (IA)..
    Pilot technology transfer           163  ...........  ..............
     (WI).....................
    Pilot technology transfer           325  ...........            325
     (OK, MS).................
    Potato pest management              190  ...........            200
     (WI).....................
    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              275  ...........  ..............
     (OK).....................
    Wood biomass as an                  197  ...........  ..............
     alternative farm product
     (NY).....................
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Federal            18,112        5,653         15,021
         administration.......
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total, extension            432,475      413,404        434,038
         activities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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  Fiscal year     Committee
                                    2001     2002 budget  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               1,497        1,497          1,497
 Implementation...............
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program          4,889        4,889          4,889
 for Major Food Crop Systems..
Methyl Bromide Transition             2,495        2,495          2,495
 Program......................
Organic Transition Program....          499          499          1,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, Integrated              41,849       41,849         42,350
       Activities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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; Agricultural 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, APHIS
                                                           Appropriations     User fees \1\      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.
    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  Fiscal year
                                    2001     2002 budget     Committee
                                  enacted      request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine          38,884       47,254         47,254
     inspection...............
    User fees \1\.............       84,813       84,813         84,813
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, agricultural        123,697      132,067        132,067
       quarantine inspection..
                               -----------------------------------------
    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           8,187       11,367         11,367
     and management...........
    Fruit fly exclusion and          32,538       56,018         36,818
     detection................
    Screwworm.................       30,308       30,557         30,557
    Tropical bunt tick........          406          415            415
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease       211,205      248,127        228,927
       exclusion..............
                               =========================================
Plant and animal health
 monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring         68,502       71,531         69,731
     and surveillance.........
    Animal and plant health           6,249        6,601          8,101
     regulatory enforcement...
    Emergency Management              2,990        3,044          3,544
     System...................
    Pest detection............        6,714        6,844          6,844
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, plant and animal        84,455       88,020         88,220
       health monitoring......
                               =========================================
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
    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                36,700       54,456         44,246
     operations...............
    Witchweed.................        1,503        1,520          1,520
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease       162,107      291,722        208,551
       management.............
                               =========================================
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/                    9,999       10,516         10,516
     environmental protection.
    Integrated systems                  998          998            998
     acquisition project......
    Plant methods development         4,796        5,118          5,118
     laboratories.............
    Veterinary biologics......       10,727       11,413         11,913
    Veterinary diagnostics....       17,476       18,278         18,278
    Wildlife services methods        11,001       11,455         11,955
     development..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, scientific and          54,997       57,778         58,778
       technical services.....
                               =========================================
Contingency fund..............        4,096        4,096          4,096
                               =========================================
      Total, salaries and           529,397      702,925        602,754
       expenses...............
                               =========================================
Recap (salaries and expenses):
    Appropriated..............      444,584      618,112        517,941
    Agricultural quarantine          84,813       84,813         84,813
     inspection user fees.....
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and           529,397      702,925        602,754
       expenses...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 potato 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 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 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 distribution 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 
increase 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 prevention 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 treatment 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 increase 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 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
                               Fiscal year   2002 budget     Committee
                              2001 enacted     request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and                 1,996         1,996          1,996
 facilities repair,
 alterations, and
 preventative maintenance...
Plum Island, NY.............        3,193         3,193          3,193
Quarantine and seed                 4,659   ............  ..............
 facilities, AK.............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Buildings and          9,848         5,189          5,189
       Facilities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       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).
    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 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:

         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-     ................         200,000,000  ................
     224)...............................................
    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.

                   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.
    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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2002 budget       Committee
                                                                2001 estimates      request       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 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.
    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 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 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 
high-priority 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, FSA,
                                                          Appropriations     Transfers from      salaries and
                                                                            program accounts       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 
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 operation 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/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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2001 enacted     2002 budget     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.

           loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                         Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Insured     Guaranteed                               Transfer to
                                   loan \1\     loan \2\      Total     Appropriations      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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                   2001 enacted     2002 budget   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 
Reorganization 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.
    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

\1\ Such 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 stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    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 contract-commodity 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 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, 
one-third of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements, 
one-third 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 contracts, 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)

    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.

                    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 Conservation 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.
    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.
    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 small-scale 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 negative 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.
    The Committee provides no less than $250,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 level for technical assistance related to the 
Barataria-Terrebone 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 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 Conservation 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 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 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.
    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

    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.

                 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 counties. 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 contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such 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 
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
                                                                  2001           2002 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        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.
    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.
    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
                                                                     2001         2002 budget     recommendation
                                                                appropriation       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                (34,640)         (35,604)         (36,000)
     Program Account.........................................
    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 Ac-  count...........          (3,632)          (3,733)          (3,733)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        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) facilitate the economic revitalization 
of rural areas by providing 
direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers, 
families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits are 
communicated to all program eligible customers with special 
outreach efforts to target resources to underserved, 
impoverished, or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower 
the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by 
redesigning more effective programs that 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 set-
aside 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
                                                                     2001         2002 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, rural housing grants and pay-  ments..........         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
                                                                    2001 level     2002 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
                                                                ================================================
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.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for mutual and self-
help 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.
    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
                                                                    2001 level     2002 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 
Appropriations 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
                               2001 level   2002 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

                       Committee Recommendations

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee 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
                                                             2001 level        2002 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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

\1\ Provided 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.

                        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
                                                                     2001 level   2002 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
        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          74,925        41,329            41,725
       Programs Account...........................................
                                                                   =============================================
          (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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Direct loan    Administrative
                                                                   Loan level        subsidy          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 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
                                                                  2001 level      2002 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Network; 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 technology-based 
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 \1/8\th 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Direct loan   Administrative
                                                                    Loan level        Subsidy        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.

                    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.

                       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], 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 32
                                                              Appropriation       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 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 
after-school 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 
        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.--
          (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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                    Child nutrition programs                       2001 estimate    2002 budget   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.
    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.

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 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 
funding 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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          TEFAP
                                              Expenses      Amount in    Puerto Rico    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve                    purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
    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

\1\ Does 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 program 
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.
    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 non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.

                       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

\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $998,000 from the Economic Research 
Service for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public Law 106-387.
\2\ Does 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.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         salaries and expenses

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Transfers from
                                                           Appropriations     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 attaches 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 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 CCC-owned 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 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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative
                                                             Credit level       Loan subsidy        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 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 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--three-fourths 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.
    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   Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                 levels            subsidy          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.
    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.

      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-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or 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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Mammography
                                                            Prescription    clinics      Export and
                                             Appropriation    drug user    inspection  certification     Total
                                                                fees          fees          fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                                 ----------------------------      Committee
                                                                  2001 enacted  2002 request  recommendation \3\
                                                                       \1\           \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
                                                                 ===============================================
      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.
    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 Summit-Argo, 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 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 
increase 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 collaboration 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 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 Committee 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 $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 improvement 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)

    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.

                     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 reduced-price 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 $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.

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 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, [2001] 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                            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    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      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 THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2002
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                           compared with (+ or -)
                           Item                                   2001         Budget estimate       Committee     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation                         recommendation          2001
                                                                                                                      appropriation     Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              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               +500
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional                   3,560              3,684              3,684               +124   .................
 Relations...............................................
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               555                573                573                +18   .................
 Economics...............................................
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            +89,147
    Buildings and facilities.............................            74,037             30,462             99,625            +25,588            +69,163
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service...............           970,872            946,053          1,104,363           +133,491           +158,310

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
 Service:
    Research and education activities....................           505,079            407,319            542,580            +37,501           +135,261
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund..........            (7,100)            (7,100)            (7,100)  .................  .................
    Extension activities.................................           432,475            413,404            434,038             +1,563            +20,634
    Integrated activities................................            41,849             41,849             42,350               +501               +501
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and             979,403            862,572          1,018,968            +39,565           +156,396
       Extension Service.................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and                         634                654                654                +20   .................
 Regulatory Programs.....................................

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses................................           529,397            702,925            602,754            +73,357           -100,171
    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           -100,171

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               (60,596)           (60,596)           (60,596)  .................  .................
     collected)..........................................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply              13,438             13,874             13,874               +436   .................
     (transfer from section 32)..........................
    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             +1,093
    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               +205
    Lab accreditation fees \1\...........................              (998)            (1,000)            (1,000)               (+2)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service..........           695,171            715,542            715,747            +20,576               +205
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing.......         3,899,158          3,999,886          4,216,219           +317,061           +216,333
                                                          ==============================================================================================

                 Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign                      588                606                606                +18   .................
 Agricultural Services...................................

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             +1,000
    Dairy indemnity program..............................               450                100                100               -350   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service Agency......................           830,006            942,123            943,123           +113,117             +1,000

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
    Loan authorizations:
        Farm ownership loans:
            Direct.......................................          (127,722)          (128,000)          (146,966)          (+19,244)          (+18,966)
            Guaranteed...................................          (868,086)        (1,000,000)        (1,000,000)         (+131,914)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...................................          (995,808)        (1,128,000)        (1,146,966)         (+151,158)          (+18,966)

        Farm operating loans:
            Direct.......................................          (522,891)          (600,000)          (611,198)          (+88,307)          (+11,198)
            Unsubsidized guaranteed......................        (1,075,468)        (1,500,000)        (1,500,000)         (+424,532)  .................
            Subsidized guaranteed........................          (369,100)          (500,000)          (505,531)         (+136,431)           (+5,531)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...................................        (1,967,459)        (2,600,000)        (2,616,729)         (+649,270)          (+16,729)

        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)          (+35,695)

    Loan subsidies:
        Farm ownership loans:
            Direct.......................................            13,756              3,366              3,866             -9,890               +500
            Guaranteed...................................             4,427              4,500              4,500                +73   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...................................            18,183              7,866              8,366             -9,817               +500

        Farm operating loans:
            Direct.......................................            47,251             53,580             54,580             +7,329             +1,000
            Unsubsidized guaranteed......................            14,738             52,650             52,650            +37,912   .................
            Subsidized guaranteed........................            30,119             67,800             68,550            +38,431               +750
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...................................            92,108            174,030            175,780            +83,672             +1,750

        Indian tribe land acquisition....................               322                118                118               -204   .................
        Emergency disaster loans.........................             6,120              3,363              3,363             -2,757   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loan subsidies..........................           116,733            185,377            187,627            +70,894             +2,250

    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             +2,250
              (Loan authorization).......................        (3,090,216)        (3,855,000)        (3,890,695)         (+800,479)          (+35,695)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Farm Service Agency.....................         1,215,600          1,408,095          1,411,345           +195,745             +3,250
                                                          ==============================================================================================
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             +3,250
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                       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                   (5,000)            (5,000)            (5,000)  .................  .................
     management (limitation on administrative expenses)..
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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           +219,583
            (By transfer)................................          (266,132)          (274,357)          (274,357)           (+8,225)  .................
            (Loan authorization).........................        (3,090,216)        (3,855,000)        (3,890,695)         (+800,479)          (+35,695)
            (Limitation on administrative expenses)......          (108,059)          (108,059)          (108,059)  .................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and                 709                730                730                +21   .................
 Environment.............................................

Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation operations..............................           712,545            773,454            802,454            +89,909            +29,000
    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            +10,000
    Resource conservation and development................            41,923             43,048             48,048             +6,125             +5,000
    Forestry incentives program..........................             6,311   .................             7,811             +1,500             +7,811
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service......           870,847            927,875            979,686           +108,839            +51,811
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs.............           871,556            928,605            980,416           +108,860            +51,811
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          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           +312,000
    (By transfer)........................................  .................  .................           (13,000)          (+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)           (+2,500)
        (Transfer from RDLFP)............................            (3,632)            (3,733)            (3,733)             (+101)  .................
        (Transfer from RETLP)............................           (34,640)           (35,604)           (36,000)           (+1,360)             (+396)
        (Transfer from RTB)..............................            (2,993)            (3,082)            (3,082)              (+89)  .................
        (Transfer from TLP)..............................  .................  .................            (2,000)           (+2,000)           (+2,000)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses.............................          (579,682)          (595,882)          (600,778)          (+21,096)           (+4,896)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Development.......................           890,948            825,847          1,137,847           +246,899           +312,000
                                                          ==============================================================================================
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)          (+30,396)
                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)          (+30,396)

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family (sec. 502).....................           170,983            140,108            144,108            -26,875             +4,000
            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             +4,000

        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)....           408,333            419,741            422,241            +13,908             +2,500

        Rental assistance program:
            (Sec. 521)...................................           672,604            687,604            702,604            +30,000            +15,000
            (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))..........................             5,900              5,900              5,900   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental assistance program...........           678,504            693,504            708,504            +30,000            +15,000
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund........         1,335,529          1,357,132          1,378,632            +43,103            +21,500
                  (Loan authorization)...................        (4,469,183)        (4,470,648)        (4,501,044)          (+31,861)          (+30,396)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help housing grants..................            33,925             33,925             35,000             +1,075             +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             +1,075
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, Rural Housing Service.......................         1,443,291          1,458,402          1,480,977            +37,686            +22,575
          (Loan authorization)...........................        (4,469,183)        (4,470,648)        (4,501,044)          (+31,861)          (+30,396)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
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   .................

    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             +1,514
    Rural empowerment zones and enterprise community       .................            14,967             14,967            +14,967   .................
     grants..............................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service..........            33,453             45,296             46,810            +13,357             +1,514
          (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)         (+205,642)
                Direct, FFB..............................        (1,600,000)        (1,600,000)        (2,600,000)       (+1,000,000)       (+1,000,000)
                Direct, Treasury rate....................          (500,000)          (500,000)          (750,000)         (+250,000)         (+250,000)
                Guaranteed electric......................          (100,000)          (100,000)          (100,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal...............................        (2,615,486)        (2,615,465)        (4,071,107)       (+1,455,621)       (+1,455,642)

            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)       (+1,455,642)

        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               34,640             35,604             36,000             +1,360               +396
             RD).........................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Rural Electrification and                       74,925             41,329             41,725            -33,200               +396
               Telecommunications Loans Program Account..
                  (Loan authorization)...................        (3,110,321)        (3,110,292)        (4,565,934)       (+1,455,613)       (+1,455,642)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
        (Loan authorization).............................          (174,615)  .................          (174,615)  .................         (+174,615)
        Direct loan subsidy..............................             2,584   .................             3,737             +1,153             +3,737
        RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD).....             2,993              3,082              3,082                +89   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..........................................             5,577              3,082              6,819             +1,242             +3,737

    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)  .................
        Grants/loans subsidy costs.......................            26,941             26,941             51,941            +25,000            +25,000

    Local Television loan program account:
        (Loan authorization).............................  .................  .................          (322,580)         (+322,580)         (+322,580)
        Direct loan subsidy..............................  .................  .................            25,000            +25,000            +25,000
        LTLP administration expenses (transfer to RD)....  .................  .................             2,000             +2,000             +2,000
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Utilities Service.................           107,443             71,352            127,485            +20,042            +56,133
              (Loan authorization).......................        (3,684,936)        (3,510,292)        (5,463,129)       (+1,778,193)       (+1,952,837)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community          2,475,739          2,401,520          2,793,742           +318,003           +392,222
           Development Programs..........................
              (By transfer)..............................          (449,598)          (486,160)          (504,056)          (+54,458)          (+17,896)
              (Loan authorization).......................        (8,207,260)        (8,034,077)       (10,017,310)       (+1,810,050)       (+1,983,233)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and                   569                587                587                +18   .................
 Consumer Services.......................................

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs.............................         4,407,445          4,729,490          4,746,038           +338,593            +16,548
        Transfer from section 32.........................         5,127,579          5,357,256          5,340,708           +213,129            -16,548
        Discretionary spending...........................             6,486              2,000                500             -5,986             -1,500
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs................         9,541,510         10,088,746         10,087,246           +545,736             -1,500

    Special supplemental nutrition program for women,             4,043,086          4,137,086          4,247,086           +204,000           +110,000
     infants, and children (WIC).........................

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses.........................................        18,618,228         19,556,436         19,556,436           +938,208   .................
        Reserve..........................................           100,000          1,000,000            100,000   .................          -900,000
        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           -900,000

    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             +2,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Nutrition Service..................        34,111,114         36,628,804         35,839,304         +1,728,190           -789,500
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs............        34,111,683         36,629,391         35,839,891         +1,728,208           -789,500
                                                          ==============================================================================================
     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)  .................          (+19,928)
        Loan subsidy.....................................           113,935            113,935            130,218            +16,283            +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)          (+14,841)
        Appropriation....................................           835,159            835,159            850,000            +14,841            +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)          (+14,841)
              Appropriation..............................           971,217            971,376          1,002,500            +31,283            +31,124
                                                          ==============================================================================================
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          1,090,199          1,096,953          1,128,077            +37,878            +31,124
           Programs......................................
              (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             +8,997
    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)           (+8,997)

    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   .................  .................            -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             +6,047
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                   INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.....................            67,850             70,400             70,400             +2,550   .................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative            (36,719)           (36,700)           (36,700)              (-19)  .................
 expenses)...............................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug         1,165,304          1,281,304          1,287,351           +122,047             +6,047
       Administration....................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              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               +150
Jamestown conservation...................................  .................  .................               450               +450               +450
Child and adult care feeding program.....................  .................  .................            10,000            +10,000            +10,000
CCC Apple market loss....................................  .................  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title VII, General provisions...............            29,945              1,996             12,596            -17,349            +10,600
                                                          ==============================================================================================
               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            19,457   .................  .................           -19,457   .................
 environment (contingent emergency appropriations).......
Departmental administration (contingent emergency                       200   .................  .................              -200   .................
 appropriations).........................................

                   Farm Service Agency

Salaries and expenses (contingent emergency                          49,890   .................  .................           -49,890   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Emergency conservation program (contingent emergency                 79,824   .................  .................           -79,824   .................
 appropriations).........................................

            Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Federal crop insurance corporation fund (emergency                   12,971   .................  .................           -12,971   .................
 appropriations).........................................

          Natural Resources Conservation Service

Watershed and flood prevention operations (contingent               109,758   .................  .................          -109,758   .................
 emergency appropriations)...............................

                    Rural Development

Rural community advancement program (contingent emergency           199,560   .................  .................          -199,560   .................
 appropria-  tions)......................................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Agriculture...................           471,660   .................  .................          -471,660   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                    General Provisions

Conservation technical assistance (contingent emergency              34,923   .................  .................           -34,923   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Disease loss compensation (contingent emergency                  19,000   .................  .................           -19,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Dairy assistance (contingent emergency appropriations)...           473,000   .................  .................          -473,000   .................
CCC Livestock assistance program (contingent emergency              488,922   .................  .................          -488,922   .................
 appropriations).........................................
WRP Additional acreage enrollments (contingent emergency            117,000   .................  .................          -117,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Sheep loss assistance (contingent emergency                       2,395   .................  .................            -2,395   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Citrus canker compensation (contingent emergency                 57,872   .................  .................           -57,872   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Apple/potatoes market loss and quality (contingent              137,696   .................  .................          -137,696   .................
 emergency appropriations)...............................
CCC Honey assistance (contingent emergency                           20,000   .................  .................           -20,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Livestock indemnity program (contingent emergency                 9,978   .................  .................            -9,978   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Wool/mohair assistance (contingent emergency                     19,956   .................  .................           -19,956   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Crop loss disaster assistance (contingent emergency           1,622,000   .................  .................        -1,622,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Cranberry assistance (contingent emergency                       19,956   .................  .................           -19,956   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Shared appreciation loan arrangements (contingent                     2,000   .................  .................            -2,000   .................
 emergency appropria-  tions)............................
SC grain dealer's guarantee fund (contingent emergency                2,495   .................  .................            -2,495   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Puerto Rico food stamp block grant.......................            -5,000   .................  .................            +5,000   .................
Hawaii sugar transportation cost assistance (contingent               7,184   .................  .................            -7,184   .................
 emergency appropriations)...............................
Rural development cooperative grants (contingent                      9,978   .................  .................            -9,978   .................
 emergency appropriations)...............................
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                  3,000   .................  .................            -3,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Cooperative assistance (contingent emergency                     19,956   .................  .................           -19,956   .................
 appropriations).........................................
CCC Burley tobacco (contingent emergency appropriations).            50,000   .................  .................           -50,000   .................
CCC LDP delinquent borrower (contingent emergency                     5,000   .................  .................            -5,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Food stamp excess shelter allowance (contingent emergency            15,000   .................  .................           -15,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
Food stamp vehicle allowance (contingent emergency                   25,000   .................  .................           -25,000   .................
 appropriations).........................................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      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            -78,113
              Appropriations.............................       (73,029,238)       (73,981,408)       (73,903,295)         (+874,057)          (-78,113)
              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)          (+17,896)
          (Loan authorization)...........................       (11,456,803)       (12,028,476)       (14,067,332)       (+2,610,529)       (+2,038,856)
          (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           +219,583
Title II--Conservation programs..........................           871,556            928,605            980,416           +108,860            +51,811
Title III--Rural economic and community development               2,475,739          2,401,520          2,793,742           +318,003           +392,222
 programs................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs.........................        34,111,683         36,629,391         35,839,891         +1,728,208           -789,500
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs.........         1,090,199          1,096,953          1,128,077            +37,878            +31,124
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug                      1,165,304          1,281,304          1,287,351           +122,047             +6,047
 Administration..........................................
Title VII--General provisions............................            29,945              1,996             12,596            -17,349            +10,600
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            -78,113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

                                  

```