73–176

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–116

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JUNE 27, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BONILLA, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2330]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

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

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FY 2001

appropriation 1

FY 2002

estimates

FY 2002

recommendation

FY 2002 recommendation compared with

FY 2001

appropriation

FY 2002

estimates

Title I—Agricultural Programs ............................ $33,249,900,000 $31,636,339,000 $31,769,514,000 ¥$1,480,386,000 +$133,175,000

Title II—Conservation Programs ............................ 871,556,000 928,605,000 948,632,000 +77,076,000 +20,027,000

ACP Rescission ......... ............................ ............................ ¥45,000,000 ¥45,000,000 ¥45,000,000

Title III—Rural Economic

and Community Development Programs .......... 2,481,127,000 2,401,520,000 2,488,414,000 +7,287,000 +86,894,000

Title IV—Domestic Food

Programs ....................... 34,111,685,000 36,629,391,000 36,648,628,000 +2,536,943,000 +19,237,000

Title V—Foreign Assistance

and Related Programs .. 1,090,199,000 1,096,953,000 1,106,701,000 +16,502,000 +9,748,000

Title VI—FDA and Related

Agencies ........................ 1,165,304,000 1,281,304,000 1,288,554,000 +123,250,000 +7,250,000

Title VII—General Provisions .............................. 29,945,000 1,996,000 155,000,000 +125,055,000 +153,004,000

2

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued

FY 2001

appropriation 1

FY 2002

estimates

FY 2002

recommendation

FY 2002 recommendation compared with

FY 2001

appropriation

FY 2002

estimates

Title VIII—Natural Disaster

Assistance and Other

Emergency Appropriations ............................... 3,638,949,000 0 0 ¥3,638,949,000 0

Title X—Anti-Dumping ...... 39,912,000 0 0 ¥39,912,000 0

Total ...................... 76,678,577,000 73,976,108,000 74,360,443,000 ¥2,318,134,000 +384,335,000

1 Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

For discretionary programs the Committee provides $15,669,000,000, which is $3,046,700,000 less than the amount

available in fiscal year 2001 and $260,214,000 more than the budget request.

In this report, all references to enacted fiscal year 2001 appropriations levels represent the amounts enacted in Public Law 106– 387, as reduced by 0.22 percent pursuant to Public Law 106–554.

INTRODUCTION

The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives of

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

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

supply.

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

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

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

population to provide a wide variety of safe, nutritious, and affordable food for all Americans and for many more people overseas.

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

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

Economist, the Economic Research Service, the Food and Nutrition

Service, the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative

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

The rural development programs funded in this bill provide basic

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

America. Conservation and environmental programs preserve lands

and watersheds for use by future generations.

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

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

commodity trading.

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

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

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

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

3

year 2001. The Committee’s recommended program levels are

based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on mandatory

programs.

Pay Costs.—The Committee’s recommendation includes full funding to cover 4.6% pay increases for fiscal year 2002, the level contained in the conference agreement on the budget resolution. Without this funding, agencies would be required to reduce the level of

services provided in order to cover mandatory cost increases.

Program Priorities/Loan Targeting.—The Committee will expect

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

rural housing loan and assistance programs.

Proposed New User Fees.—The budget request assumes the establishment of new user fees in the following areas: • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Welfare Inspections • Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,

Grain Standards Development • Food and Drug Administration:

• Import Program Operations • Food Export Certificates

None of these proposed user fees are currently authorized in law.

The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should they

achieve authorization.

Unauthorized Appropriations Requests.—The Committee directs

that budget justification materials submitted in support of future

appropriations requests will contain tabular listings of any item

that is not authorized by law, in the format contained elsewhere

in this report under the heading ‘‘Appropriations Not Authorized by

Law’’.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

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

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

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

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

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

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

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

(4)

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $2,908,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2,992,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 3,015,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +107,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +23,000

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 of 1944

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

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $3,015,000, an increase of $107,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $23,000

above the budget request.

Plant and animal pest and disease emergencies.—The Committee

is concerned about the increasing risk to our nation’s food supply

from plant and animal pests and diseases. Recent examples include

citrus canker in Florida, glassy-winged sharpshooter in California,

Asian longhorned beetles in Illinois and New York, Mediterranean

and Mexican fruit flies throughout the southern United States, and

the possibility for a foot and mouth disease incursion. The Committee notes that the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to declare emergencies and to use the resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the arrest and eradication of such threats to

American agriculture. This system has served our country well for

many years by granting the Secretary the power to make virtually

unlimited efforts to eliminate emerging pest and disease problems

before outbreaks expand and become unmanageable.

Criminal acts/terrorist incidents.—The Committee is concerned

about rising numbers of criminal acts targeting animal and plant

research facilities. The Secretary is directed to report to the ComVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.000 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
5

mittee on the extent of animal and plant terrorism incidents at

USDA funded facilities, the consequence of these activities on research, recommendations for improving security at federally funded

facilities, and guidance on the appropriate federal role in response

to such criminal activities. This report shall be submitted to the

Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Agriculture of

both the House and Senate by March 31, 2002.

Farmers’ Market at USDA Headquarters.—The Committee notes

that the Farmers’ Market operating at USDA headquarters in

Washington, D.C. has been a successful link between farmers and

consumers, demonstrating the role that USDA can play in alternative market structures for producers. The Committee encourages

the Secretary to continue the operation of the USDA Farmers’ Market in its current location.

Food Guide Pyramid.—The Committee directs the Secretary of

Agriculture to study and report within 90 days of enactment of this

Act on the design of an effective program for elementary school

children to make use of the Food Guide Pyramid.

State Office Colocation.—The Committee continues to direct that

any reallocation of resources related to the colocation of state offices scheduled for 2001 and subsequent years is subject to the

Committee’s reprogramming procedures. The Committee notes that

no such reprogramming requests have been received to date.

Alternative Energy.—The Committee notes that notwithstanding

the participation of the Secretary of Agriculture in the National

Energy Policy Development Group, the Report of the Group to the

President does not call sufficient attention to the role of the Department of Agriculture in the development of renewable energy

sources. The Committee urges the Department to continue its

strong efforts in support of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased

renewable fuels, and to work to bring these efforts to the forefront

of public attention. Further, the Committee looks forward to the receipt of the report required by FY 2001 appropriations legislation

from the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, and Interior, regarding

the feasibility of including ethanol and biodiesel as part of the national Strategic Fuels Reserve.

Agriculture Exhibit at the Smithsonian.—The Committee believes

that it is important that Americans be given a comprehensive impression of the history of American agriculture, and its continuing

vitality and importance to our economy. To that end, the Committee encourages the Secretary to work with officials at the American History Museum of the Smithsonian Institution to assist that

museum in achieving the goal to properly portray the key role agriculture plays in our country with revisions and improvements to

the current exhibit.

Global Food for Education Initiative.—The Committee expects

the Secretary of Agriculture to continue in fiscal year 2002 the

Global Food for Education Initiative program implemented in fiscal

year 2001, at the level implemented in fiscal year 2001. The assistance provided under this section shall be in addition to other demands for section 416(b) and PL 480 Title I commodities.

Computing and Information Technologies Review.—The Committee recognizes that U.S. competitiveness in 21st Century agriculture will be based on multi-disciplinary research that requires

6

the most advanced computing and information technologies. The

Committee directs the Secretary to conduct a review of its advanced computational capabilities, particularly in the Agriculture

Research Services, the Cooperative State, Research, Education and

Extension Service and the Economic Research Service. The Committee is concerned that the department is not keeping pace with

other federal agencies both in in-house and external research programs. The Committee also urges the Secretary to convene a symposium of researchers from the leading agricultural universities to

identify complex agricultural, environmental and natural resource

research problems that require significant computational resources

and programming to advance.

The Committee is concerned that extensive use of contracting

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

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

Rural Development Services and the Farm Service Agency often

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

comparisons of the use of private contractors with federal employee

performance and to employ the most efficient organization process

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

the Department to solicit input from federal employees in agencies

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

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

Committee also directs the Department to report on its contracting

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

its annual budget submission for fiscal year 2003.

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

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

policy officials and selected department-wide services. Activities

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

Program Analysis.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $7,446,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,648,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,704,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +258,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +56,000

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

programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Nation’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, energy

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

international food and agriculture, and is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and

food-related data used to develop outlook and situation material

within the Department.

7

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

appropriation of $7,704,000, an increase of $258,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $56,000

above the budget request.

Agricultural supply and demand.—The Committee urges the Department to work with a qualified entity such as Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate Prediction to obtain improved and available tools and mechanisms for foreign agricultural supply and demand estimates.

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,394,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 12,766,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 12,869,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +475,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +103,000

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $12,869,000, an increase of $475,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $103,000

above the budget request.

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,750,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,978,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,041,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +291,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +63,000

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction

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

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

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program

managers in the decision-making process; and provides department-wide coordination for and participation in the presentation of

budget related matters to the Committees of the Congress, the

media, and interested public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of the preparation and processing of regulations

and legislative programs and reports.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $7,041,000, an increase of $291,000

8

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$63,000 above the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,029,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,261,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,325,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +296,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +64,000

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

Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. Pursuant to

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

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

and information technology investment activities in support of

USDA program delivery. The Office provides long-range planning

guidance, implements measures to ensure that technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources Management projects, and implements standards

to promote information exchange and technical interoperability.

The Office also provides telecommunications and ADP services to

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

Operations.

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

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $10,325,000, an increase of $296,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$64,000 above the budget request.

The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to keep the

Committee updated, on a routine basis, as the information risk

management and telecommunications programs are implemented.

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

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

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 59,369,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 59,369,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +19,457,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................ 1Excludes $19.5 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding appropriations provided by P.L. 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. Section 808 of P.L. 104–208 reVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.001 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
9

quires USDA to maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county field

offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and replace

the current, aging information systems with a modern Common

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of $59,369,000, an increase of $19,457,000

above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same

amount as the budget request.

The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting to

the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the implementation of the Common Computing Environment.

Within the amount appropriated, $4,500,000 is 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 of which $1,500,000 is for the same data storage technology for

the Combined Administrative Management System.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,160,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,335,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,384,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +224,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +49,000

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

of the Department’s financial management operations and systems.

The Office supports the Chief Financial Officer in carrying out the

dual roles of the Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and

the Chief Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area heads. The Office provides leadership, expertise, coordination, and evaluation in the development of Department and

agency programs for financial management, accounting, travel,

Federal assistance, and performance measurements. It is also responsible for the management and operation of the National Finance Center. The Office also provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,384,000, an increase of $224,000 above

the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$49,000 above the budget request.

10

The Committee has included bill language that directs the Chief

Financial Officer to actively market and expand the cross-servicing

activities of the National Finance Center.

The Committee recommends language that allows the Secretary

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

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

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

National Information Technology Center in Kansas City, MO and

Ft. Collins, CO.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $628,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 647,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 652,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +24,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration directs

and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real and personal

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

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

Department’s Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the

Committee provides an appropriation of $652,000, an increase of

$24,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $182,345,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 187,581,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 187,647,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,302,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +66,000

Rental Payments.—Annual appropriations are made to agencies

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

services.

The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to agencies occupying 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. The cost of newly leased space reflects current

11

private sector market rates. The leases are competitively acquired

in close coordination with USDA and other customer agencies.

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

GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the

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

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

GSA delegation expired, USDA has been responsible for managing,

operating, maintaining, repairing, and improving the headquarters

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

USDA began operations of the Beltsville Office Facility.

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

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

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

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

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

been proposed. This USDA Strategic Space Plan will correct serious

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

safety hazards which exist in the huge Agriculture South Building.

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

facility was constructed with funds appropriated to the Department

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

In fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations at the Beltsville Office

Facility.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments to

GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of $187,647,000, an

increase of $5,302,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $66,000 above the budget request.

Included in this amount is $130,266,000 for rental payments to

GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the Secretary of

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

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

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

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

billing.

The Committee includes language as requested that allows for

the reconfiguration and release of space back into the General

Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space rental

cost for space not needed for USDA programs. The Committee directs that the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress shall be notified at least 15 days in advance of any proposal

to commit or obligate funds for this purpose.

12

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

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 estimate 2002 budget

request

Committee recommendation

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

Building Operations ................................ 31,136 31,372 31,438

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

Total .............................................. 182,345 187,581 187,647

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $15,665,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,665,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,665,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

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

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

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

covered by the Department or within departmental jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $15,665,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the budget request.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

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

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 37,079,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 37,398,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,467,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +319,000 1 Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L. 106–387 which was

transferred to the Small Business Administration.

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

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

real and personal property management, procurement, contracting,

motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, civil

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

ranchers in the Department’s program activities, emergency preparedness, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial

Officer. Departmental Administration also provides administrative

13

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 government-wide policies and initiatives; analyzing the impact of government-wide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages in strategic planning

and evaluating programs to ensure Department-wide compliance

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $37,398,000, an increase of $1,467,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $319,000

above the budget request.

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $2,993,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,993,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 2,993,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

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

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

made to eligible community-based organizations with demonstrated

experience in providing education or other agriculturally related

services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their

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

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and

Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$2,993,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2001

and the same amount as the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,560,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,684,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,718,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +158,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +34,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

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

in the development and implementation of policies and procedures

14

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,718,000, an

increase of $158,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $34,000 above the budget request.

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

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,604,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,894,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,975,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +371,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +81,000

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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $8,975,000, an increase of $371,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $81,000

above the budget request.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $68,715,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 70,839,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 71,429,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,714,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +590,000

The Office of Inspector General was established October 12,

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

1915, dated March 23, 1977.

The Office is administered by an Inspector General who reports

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

investigative policies and procedures regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and coordination of program-related

audit and investigation activities performed by other Department

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

15

and the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs. The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the

Department’s agencies, and to provide appropriate officials with

the means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and

includes administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and

investigative agencies of the executive and legislative branches of

the government.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $71,429,000, an increase of $2,714,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $590,000

above the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

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

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 32,627,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 32,937,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,925,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +310,000 1 Excludes $500,000 less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L 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 manages all of the legal work arising

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

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

freight rates and practices relating to farm commodities. Counsel

serves as General Counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation

and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal

cases arising under the programs of the Department for referral to

the Department of Justice.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $32,937,000, an increase of $1,925,000 above

the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$310,000 above the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $555,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 573,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 578,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +23,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,000

16

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 PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$578,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for

fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

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

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 67,200,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 67,620,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +729,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +420,000 1Does not reflect the transfer of $1 million to FPA in the Food and Nutrition Service.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic and

other social science information and analysis for public and private

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

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $67,620,000, an increase of $729,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $420,000

above the budget request. The Committee has provided $9,195,000

for food program studies and evaluations work under the Economic

Research Service and $3,000,000 for food program studies under

the Food and Nutrition Service.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $100,550,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 113,786,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 114,546,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +13,996,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +760,000

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) administers

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

for making effective policy, production, and marketing decisions.

These statistics provide accurate and timely estimates of current

agricultural production and measures of the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides staVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.001 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
17

tistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support of

their missions, and provides consulting, technical assistance, and

training to developing countries.

Beginning with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, funding has

been provided to NASS for the Census of Agriculture which has

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

five years and provides comprehensive data on the agricultural

economy including: data on the number of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,

farm size, and characteristics of farm operators. It provides national, state, and county data as well as selected data for Puerto

Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $114,546,000, an increase of

$13,996,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $760,000 above the budget request. Included in this

amount is $25,456,000 for the Census of Agriculture. The Census

of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data every five

years on all aspects of the agricultural economy.

The budget year is the third year in a five-year funding cycle for

the Census of Agriculture; Census funding needs are cyclical and

increase as data collection activities begin.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $896,835,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 915,591,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 971,365,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +74,530,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +55,774,000

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by the

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

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

6912), ARS includes functions previously performed by the Human

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

sciences, agricultural engineering, utilization and development,

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

narcotic-producing plants.

ARS also directs research beneficial to the United States which

can be advantageously conducted in foreign countries through

agreements with foreign research institutions and universities,

using foreign currencies for such purposes. This program is carried

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

480, and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act

of 1954, as amended.

18

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

$971,365,000, an increase of $74,530,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $55,774,000 above the

budget request.

Animal vaccines.—There is a critical need to develop new technologies to mitigate the adverse impacts of disease on cattle, poultry, and swine. The USDA estimates that the annual monetary loss

as a result of cattle and swine diarrheal disease is $500 million in

the U.S. alone. Additionally, USDA estimates that food borne

pathogens cause between 6.5 million and 33 million cases of human

disease and 9,000 deaths annually. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for expanded research on advanced animal vaccines and diagnostic applications currently carried out jointly by ARS, the University of Connecticut, and the University of Missouri.

Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC).—ARS’ National Agricultural Library (NAL) operates the Animal Welfare Information

Center which was established as mandated by the 1985 Animal

Welfare Act, as amended. AWIC is a key component of NAL’s integrated information services program that enhances access to information about animal welfare. The center assists researchers and

others responsible for the care of laboratory animals with important information to enable them to comply with the humane standards established under the Animal Welfare Act. The Committee

provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for expanded

animal welfare activities.

Aquaculture initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 in fiscal

year 2002 for collaborative research between the Agricultural Research Service and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute,

with participation of the Florida State University on research to

design low-cost energy efficient recirculating aquaculture production systems for marine species in new environments. This research will expand aquaculture of subtropical marine species to inland sites throughout the Southeastern U.S. by adapting marine

species to new environments of fresh water. This research will

focus on culture technologies, energy efficiency, and design of lowcost recirculating systems for intensive aquaculture production.

Bee research.—The Committee recognizes the important research

carried out at Weslaco, Texas in control of parasitic mites and directs the agency to continue its support of the bee research program at the fiscal year 2001 level.

Binational agriculture research and development.—The Committee recognizes the important research carried out through the

binational agriculture research and development program and provides $399,120, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.

Biobased products and bioenergy.—The development of biobased

products and bioenergy represents an additional source of demand

for agricultural products as well as enhanced energy security. Ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased products are also necessary to

provide products that have environmental benefits. The Committee

19

provides $15,000,000 for this research as justified in the President’s budget. Research to improve conversion of agricultural materials to biofuels: Peoria, Illinois, $4,800,000; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,200,000; and Albany, California, $2,000,000. Develop

biobased materials for agricultural commodities: Peoria, Illinois,

$1,500,000; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,250,000; and New Orleans, Louisiana, $1,250,000. Improve biomass feedstocks for energy:

Lincoln, Nebraska, $700,000; St. Paul, Minnesota, $400,000; and

Madison, Wisconsin, $400,000. Sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct crop production systems, $1,500,000, to be conducted at El

Reno, Oklahoma; Tifton, Georgia; Mandan, North Dakota; University Park, Pennsylvania; and Corvallis, Oregon.

Bioinformatics.—The Committee provides $4,500,000 to develop

bioinformatic tools and provide database support for ARS’ plant

and animal science programs. The research will be conducted at

Beltsville, Maryland; Ithaca, New York; Clay Center, Nebraska;

Ames, Iowa; and Stoneville, Mississippi. The genomics program

will generate information for dairy cattle, beef cattle, pigs, and

poultry. It will enhance the capacity to manage information from

the analysis of plant and crop genomes. Bioinformatics and database support will be developed for soybeans, cotton, corn, maize,

and catfish. This effort will prove invaluable in developing new

technologies that will provide more rapid and efficient methods to

characterize, identify, and manipulate useful properties of genes

and genomes.

Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematodes.—The

Committee recognizes the need for additional research on crop

pests, particularly soil nematodes. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for a cooperative project involving the ARS

Beltsville research center, private partners and other universities

for systematic field experiments in major nematode-impacted crop

production areas.

Biotechnology Research Development Corporation—BRDC.—

BRDC is a uniquely successful public/private partnership dedicated

to promoting technology development and commercialization of agricultural technology. The success of this investment can be measured by the large number of patents and technology licenses of inventions sponsored through BRDC. The Committee is providing an

increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to expedite the development and commercialization of agricultural technology which will

result in an improved farm economy and related agribusiness

based industries.

Biotechnology risk assessment.—The Committee provides

$3,000,000 as requested to conduct research which will provide

early identification of potential risks in deploying biotech crops,

and data sets that can be used by regulatory agencies to assess

risk and apply science-based management. The research is directed

to assessing the risks of lateral gene transfer in the environment;

preventing the buildup of resistant pest populations; and decreasing allergens and increasing nutritional qualities of biotech food

products. This research will be carried out at Beltsville, Maryland;

Madison, Wisconsin; Albany, California; Ithaca, New York; and

West Lafayette, Indiana.

20

Bovine genetics.—The cattle industry in the U.S. is a $400 billion

annual business. The Committee supports a research program on

biotechnology and genetics in cattle to be jointly carried out by

ARS, the University of Connecticut and the University of Illinois.

This program will utilize advanced research technologies to improve efficiency of clones and establish cell lines from elite cows

and bulls for cloning. The Committee provides an increase of

$900,000 for these studies.

Center for Biological Controls, Florida A&M University.—The

Center for Biological Controls conducts important research in the

area of biological controls for insects and pests that cost agricultural producers millions of dollars in losses annually. The Center

partners with the USDA in providing minority students with the

opportunity to engage in cutting edge research in agriculture

sciences. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for this

joint research.

Cereal crops research.—The Committee is aware of the significant research on the quality and improved production practices for

barley and oats conducted at the Cereal Crops Research Laboratory

in Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee provides an increase of

$400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for expanded research on these important commodities.

Chloroplast genetic engineering research.—The Committee is

aware of research advances at the University of Central Florida on

chloroplast genetic engineering. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for cooperative research with

the University of Central Florida to conduct research on the efficient and effective means of genetically-engineering chloroplast to

increase efficiency of photosynthesis as a key component of agricultural production and to reduce the spread of transgenes via pollen

flow.

Coffee and cocoa research.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the expansion of alternative crop

research development with specific emphasis on coffee and cocoa.

This disease resistance/alternative crop research development program is critical in controlling a range of domestic and tropical

fungal and pest diseases that particularly plague coffee and cocoa.

Continuing Programs.—The Committee recognizes the importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems faced by

the Nation’s food and fiber producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund

the following areas of research in fiscal year 2002 at the same

funding level provided in fiscal year 2001: Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation; Microbial Pathogens in Small Watersheds; National Sedimentation Laboratory-Acoustics; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory; Soil Tilth Research; Water Use Management Technology; Watershed Research; Western Grazinglands; Bee Research; Biological

Controls and Agricultural Research; Cereal Crops Research; Citrus

and Horticultural Research; Coffee and Cocoa Research; Endophyte

Research; Floriculture and Nursery Crops Research; Golden Nematode; Grape Rootstock; Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research;

Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Lettuce Geneticist/

Breeder, Salinas, CA; Fusarium Head Blight; Nematology Research; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA; Potato ReVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.001 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
21

search; Rangeland Resource Management; Rice Research; Risk Assessment for Bt. Corn; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley; Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position; Temperate Fruit Flies; U.S.

Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory; Viticulture Research;

Animal Vaccines; Aquaculture Fisheries Center; Aquaculture Initiative for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands; Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute; Aquaculture Systems; Asian

Bird Influenza; Avian Pneumovirus; Catfish Genome; Malignant

Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus; Mosquito Trapping Research and

West Nile Virus; Poultry Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome (PEMS);

Poultry Diseases; Aflatoxin in Cotton; Cotton Ginning Research;

Post-harvest and Controlled Atmosphere Chamber; Barley Food

Health Benefits Research.

Dairy genetics research.—The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the Animal Improvement Research

Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland for increased research on dairy

cattle genetics and to undertake research related to reproductive

health. This research will include the maintenance of a national

database for genetic research on milk yield, composition, and fitness traits; improved methods of comparing genetic evaluations

across countries, and determine economic values of health and reproductive traits.

Diet and immune function research.—Infectious diseases are a

major cause of mortality and morbidity in all segments of the population. Nutritional imbalances can lead to impaired immune response. Additional research is needed to determine the effects of

diet on the immune system and whether infectious agents can alter

their pathogenicity in response to the diet of the host. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for this research to be conducted at the ARS nutrition center at Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dryland production research.—The Committee is aware that the

ARS Central Great Plains Research Station is the only Federal research station engaged at solving the dryland production problems

in the four-state region encompassing eastern Colorado, western

Nebraska, western Kansas, and southeastern Wyoming covering

approximately 55 million acres of which one-half are non-irrigated

cropland. Technology developed at the Station is critical to dryland

crop producers of the region. An increase of $300,000 is provided

in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron, Colorado to implement innovative crop rotation systems and reduce tillage practices and improve crop yields, while

minimizing weed, disease, and insect damage.

Emerging diseases of animals.—The Committee provides

$5,000,000 as requested for research on bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE) to establish the nature and transmission of

BSE; detection and diagnosis of this disease; and safe disposal of

carcasses. The research will determine the causative agent of BSE

and determine the factors that allow transmissible spongiform

encephalopathies to cross species barriers. Research will be conducted to improve diagnostic tests for rapid detection of BSE

agents in blood or tissues and in feed and foods of animal origin.

Emerging diseases of crops.—Continued development of pathogen

detection, exclusion, and quarantine treatment technologies is important to keep new diseases from becoming established in the U.S.

22

The Committee acknowledges the need for research to improve genetic resistance to diseases in plants, biocontrol to replace synthetic

pesticides; and more accurate methods of pathogen identification

and detection. The Committee provides $1,282,000 for this research, to be carried out in Raleigh, North Carolina; Ft. Detrick,

Maryland; Fargo, North Dakota; and College Station, Texas.

Ergot research.—Ergot is a major fungus disease of sorghum. The

disease has spread rapidly since it was first recognized in Brazil

in 1995. Currently grown sorghum varieties have little resistance

to this fungus. While the Agricultural Research Service has a research program to combat this disease, greater effort is required.

ARS carries out sorghum related research at numerous locations,

but in many instances the research is not of sufficient effort to contribute to the solution of the problems associated with sorghum in

the U.S. The Committee directs that ARS collect and focus

$300,000 of these funds at Lincoln, Nebraska, to combat the spread

of ergot disease.

Floriculture and nursery research.—Floriculture and nursery

crops represent more than 10% of the total U.S. crop cash receipts

while environmental horticulture is the third largest value crop in

the U.S. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002, with a portion allocated through cooperative agreements

to university partners including Cornell University, University of

California, and Ohio State University.

Food safety for Listeria and E. coli.—The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to continue research on the

control and prevention of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat

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

Formosan subterranean termite.—The exotic Formosan Subterranean termite costs the U.S. one billion dollars each year. It is particularly damaging in the Greater New Orleans area, along the

Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. The Committee is aware that ARS scientists, in cooperation with scientists from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the City of New Orleans Mosquito and

Termite Control Board successfully demonstrated in a 15-block

New Orleans French Quarter test that populations of the termite

can be dramatically reduced on an area-wide basis by the use of

detection and baiting technologies. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the Southern Regional

Research Center at New Orleans, Louisiana to expand the 15-block

test to encompass the entire 108-block area of the historically and

economically important French Quarter. New information and technologies gained from this expanded test will be used to increase the

effectiveness of area-wide programs in other parts of Louisiana and

other states.

Foundry sand by-products utilization.—The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of foundry sand by-products as soil

amendment or components of blended materials including composts

for agricultural applications. The Committee provides an increase

of $600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable ARS and university/industry partners to evaluate the beneficial uses of foundry sand in agriculture and horticulture. Benefits and risks of using foundry sand

will be determined and management practices will be developed.

23

Research will also be conducted to determine if trace elements in

the foundry sand pose a risk to human health or water quality.

Ft. Pierce horticultural research laboratory.—The Committee is

aware that this recently completed horticultural research laboratory is operating significantly below authorized staffing levels. This

laboratory carries out critical research on citrus, fruits, and vegetables and nursery crops. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the U.S. Horticultural Research

Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, Florida for increased staffing needs.

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

of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal year 2001 funding

levels.

Golden nematode.—The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 in fiscal year 2002 to Cornell University to continue golden

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

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

U.S. and sixth largest crop overall. Increased grape research is

needed to sustain this crop which is processed into raisins, grape

juice, and wine, thereby adding enormous value to the crop. The

Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for

expanded grape rootstock research at Geneva, New York.

Great Basin rangelands.—The Committee acknowledges the need

to provide support for the rangelands of the Great Basin area. The

Agricultural Research Service carries out investigations to control

infestations such as medusahead, Canadian thistle, Russian

knapweed, and many other existing and invasive weeds. Research

is conducted on management of rangelands, including conservation,

restoration, and sustainable utilization. Research is also carried

out to develop predictive models of basin-scale hydrologic systems.

The Committee provides an addition of $750,000 for research to be

conducted at ARS laboratories at Reno, Nevada; Burns, Oregon;

and Boise, Idaho.

Honey bee research.—Pollination by honey bees in the U.S. is valued at $10 billion per year, but the viability of commercial honey

bee pollination and honey production as well as survival of wild

honey bees (free pollination) is threatened by two exotic parasitic

mites—the Varroa and tracheal mites. New chemical treatments,

including an evaluation of natural product chemicals for these

mites, are urgently needed because current chemical treatments

have been rendered ineffective by the mites’ ability to become resistant. Long-term control of the mites will be achieved through the

selection of honey bees resistant to the mites. ARS scientists at

Baton Rouge, LA, have developed honey bees genetically resistant

to the mites, as well as possessing excellent handling characteristics, honey production, and winter survival. Breeding, selection,

and distribution of these resistant honey bees to the industry must

be accelerated. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to

continue this research at the ARS honey bee facility at Baton

Rouge, Louisiana.

Hops research.—The Committee is aware of the significant increase in U.S. hops production with exports to over 80 countries

worldwide. The Committee also recognizes the important contribuVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.001 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
24

tion of research to U.S. hop growers in competing successfully with

European hop growers for domestic and international markets. The

Committee provides an increase of $200,000 for increased research

required by U.S. hop growers to remain competitive in the domestic

and world markets as well as in controlling new and emerging diseases affecting hops.

Improved animal waste management practices.—The Committee

provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS

Florence, SC research station for expanded research on improved

manure management practices for producers in the Southeastern

U.S. This station develops improved treatment technologies and

systems to enable producers to manage animal waste from swine

production to protect water and air quality.

Improved crop production practices.—The drought of 2000 caused

disastrous losses to row crops in the mid-south and southeast. In

Alabama alone, losses amounted to $329 million. Studies have

shown that farmers using conservation-tillage, water-thrifty cropping systems, and other soil sustaining production practices in concert with new technologies, such as global positioning systems, geographic information systems, and remote sensing, can reduce

drought-related risks and production costs. The Committee provides an increase of $800,000 in fiscal year 2002 for expanded research at the ARS Soil Dynamics Research Unit in Auburn, Alabama, and Auburn University.

Invasive species.—Invasive weeds and other pests species cost the U.S. over $122 billion per year. Weeds such as leafy spurge,

melaleuca, old world climbing fern, giant Salvinia, salt cedar,

hydrilla, water hyacinth, yellow starthistle, downy brome, Brazilian pepper, jointed goat grass, purple loosestrife, and many others infest at least 100 million acres in the United States which increase 8 to 20 percent annually. The Committee supports research

that will result in greater exclusion of potential invasive species,

quicker detection and more effective eradication of new invading

species. The Committee provides an increase of $3,500,000 for this

research on the systematics of invasive weeds and insects; the development of new biological information and species discovery; and

the development of integrated weed management systems. This research will be conducted at ARS laboratories in Beltsville, Maryland; Davis, California; Ft. Pierce, Florida; Montpellier, France; Ft.

Lauderdale, Florida; Urbana, Illinois; Ithaca, New York; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, as recommended in the budget. The Committee directs that $500,000 be utilized for a cooperative research program

with the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station in New

Haven for controlling aquatic weeds seriously threatening the

health of many of Connecticut’s lakes.

Jornada Experimental Range Research Station.—Congress supported the design and construction of a replacement facility at the

Jornada Experimental Range Research Station. The facility will be

completed in fiscal year 2002. The Committee provides an increase

of $500,000 to provide for needed research equipment for operations at this new research station.

Livestock and range research.—Range livestock production requires new, innovative strategies to meet the challenges of land use

management, environmental quality and economic sustainability.

25

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

2002 to support this research effort at the Fort Keogh Livestock

and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, Montana.

Manure management research.—There is a need for nutritional

technology to reduce odor excretion in swine while increasing efficient digestion of dietary nutrients. In addition, an integrated system research effort to develop swine production systems that reduces odor, nutrients, and pathogen problems associated with manure is likewise needed. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS swine waste management

program based at the National Swine Research Center, Ames,

Iowa.

Methyl bromide.—The Committee has been made aware that new

information may be available concerning the impact of methyl bromide on the ozone layer. In view of the adverse economic impact

that the current phase-out schedule is having on the farmer and

the food industry, the Committee urges the Department to convene

a panel of scientists who specialize in this area to reexamine the

science and report its findings as soon as possible.

Mid-Atlantic highlands aquaculture initiatives.—The Committee

provides an increase of $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 for ARS cooperative research on aquaculture initiatives with the Canaan Valley

Institute (CVI) headquartered at Canaan Valley, West Virginia.

CVI provides a forum where small watershed groups, government,

industry, and the research community can address economic development issues affecting the mid-Atlantic highland states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation.—While irrigation is normally

associated with the arid, western part of the U.S., the fastest growing irrigation states are found in the Mid-West and the Mid-South.

The need for irrigation in these areas is critical in reducing production risks, increase producer yields, promote good land management practices, and reduce input costs. The Committee provides an

increase of $130,000 in fiscal year 2002 for cooperative research

into irrigation methods and technologies with the Delta Center,

University of Missouri at Portageville, Missouri.

Minor use pesticides (IR–4).—Meeting the challenges of pest

management for minor crops is a major problem in rural America.

Pest control product registrations are critical to minor crop agriculture. However, the crop production industry has little incentive

to pursue such registrations because of small acreage and low return of investment. This program produces research data for clearances for pest control products on minor food and ornamental crops

and supports the FQPA. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for this research.

National germplasm resources program.—The Committee is

aware of the important research carried out under the ARS National Genetics Resources Program. The research effort to collect,

maintain, characterize, evaluate and enhance the germplasm is essential to agriculture and a critical component of the ARS mission.

The Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 for fiscal year

2002 for plant germplasm research at College Station, Texas; Griffin, Georgia; Miami, Florida; Pullman, Washington; Ames, Iowa;

and Urbana, Illinois. Under the National Genetic Resources ProVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.001 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
26

gram, Congress authorized the National Animal Germplasm Program to evaluate, collect and store germplasm, DNA and other tissues for preservation and utilization of genetic resources. ARS, academia (land grant and Historically Black Colleges and Universities), and industry are all involved in this program. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for this

research at Fort Collins, Colorado.

Northwest small fruits research.—The Committee acknowledges

the long-standing and productive investigations carried out at the

ARS research station at Corvallis, Oregon. The research is concentrated on genetic improvements and germplasm evaluations for

many varieties of small fruits. This research benefits small fruit industries throughout the Pacific Northwest. An addition of $300,000

is provided for fiscal year 2002.

Nutritional requirements research.—Nutrition requirements

begin in utero, and are affected by the mothers dietary intake.

These requirements continue throughout life. Although nutrient requirements differ at various stages of life, there is a lack of understanding as to the specific nutritional needs at each life stage. This

research would lead to a better understanding of how dietary factors affect growth and development, and the onset of chronic diseases. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for these

studies to be conducted at the ARS human nutrition center at

Houston, Texas.

Nutrition Monitoring.—Nutrition monitoring activities are vital

to shaping policies for food safety, child nutrition, food assistance,

and dietary guidance. While the Committee suports 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 the

USDA has failed to continue to conduct the CSFII in 2000 and

2001 as the integration process continues.

Olive fruitfly research.—The olive fruitfly is the world’s number

one pest of olives, causing devastating effects on the $66 million

olive industry in California. The Committee provides an increase of

$300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for increased research on the trap

monitoring detection program and the integrated pest management

program to control the olive fruitfly. Expanded research will be implemented at the Horticultural Research Laboratory, Parlier, CA;

and the European Biological Control Laboratory, Montpellier,

France.

Pathogens for biological control.—The Committee acknowledges

the need to expand efforts in biological control of insects and

weeds. Investigations will be undertaken to develop biologically

based weed and arthropod integrated pest management (IPM),

with emphasis on formulation and delivery of plant pathogen

agents, fungal agents, microbial agents, and effective insect control

agents. Weeds such as salt cedar, leafy spurge, melaleuca; and insects and mites such as whiteflies, Russian wheat aphid, and

glassy-winged sharpshooter are high priority targets for IPM. The

Committee concurs with the budget recommendation to provide

$1,500,000 for this research to be carried out at Weslaco, Texas;

Yakima, Washington; Stoneville, MS; and Brisbane, Australia.

27

Pay act costs.—The Committee provides funding for increased

costs associated with Federal employees salaries and benefits.

Pecan scab research.—Pecan scab is considered the most serious

disease threat to pecan production in the humid southeastern U.S.

Recent discoveries indicating the persistence of pecan fungicides

have complicated the task of developing effective disease control.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002

to the ARS Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Laboratory

at Byron, Georgia to expand research efforts on the introduction

and evaluation of new technology for fungicide application, increased knowledge of pathogens, orchard management and disease

control.

Pierce’s disease.—The Committee is aware that in the last 18

months, the highly virulent disease known as Pierce’s Disease and

its vector the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (PD–GWSS) has devastated vineyards in Southern California and established strongholds in several other premium growing areas threatening the entire grape and wine industry. Several other commodities have been

impacted because they serve as hosts of the glassy-winged sharpshooters. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly requirements for inspection and treatment regimens to curb the

spread of PD–GWSS. International trade has also been restricted

as Australia recently banned imports of California grapes over

fears of Pierce’s Disease. The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable the ARS center at Parlier

to move aggressively and effectively against this serious pest/disease combination threat to the economic viability of many crops in

California. The Committee directs that $600,000 of the increase

support new scientist positions at Davis, California, and Ft. Pierce,

Florida.

Plant stress and water conservation research.—The Committee is

aware of the staffing needs at the new U.S. Plant Stress and Water

Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX. Increased research is required to develop strategies to alleviate the impacts of temperature

stress and water deficits on plant performance, improve the efficient use of available water supplies for dryland and irrigated production systems, and research production strategies to enhance the

entire soil-plant-water relationship. An increase of $750,000 is provided in fiscal year 2002 for staffing needs of the U.S. Plant Stress

and Water Conservation Laboratory.

Poultry diseases.—The Committee is aware that research on

poultry diseases is critical to national and international competitiveness of animal agriculture and that poultry diseases are a limiting factor to the expansion of U.S. poultry exports. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 for increased research on Avian coccidiosis, an intestinal parasitic disease which is responsible for estimated losses of over $300 million

annually. The Committee also provides an increase of $150,000 for

increased research to help accelerate effective avian pneumovirus

disease treatment and vaccine development.

Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest.—The

Committee provides an increase of $400,000 for the ARS Southwest

Watershed Research Center at Tucson, Arizona, and directs ARS to

cooperate with a consortium of 16 local, state, Federal and NGO’s

28

of the Upper San Pedro Partnership to provide research, hydro-ecological modeling, and specialized field experimental campaigns to

more accurately quantify components of a basin’s water budget to

support local and community based watershed management.

Rangeland resources research.—The Committee is aware that

ARS High Plains Grassland Research Station at Cheyenne, Wyoming is a leader in the fields of grazing practices, carbon cycling,

reclamation of disturbed mineland and general rangeland ecology.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002

to support this important rangeland resources research program at

the station.

Residue management in sugarcane.—Current systems for sugarcane production in Louisiana include the practice of burning the

crop residue after the sugarcane has been harvested. To meet current air quality regulations and additional environmental restrictions anticipated in the future, research is urgently needed to develop sugarcane productions systems that do not include residue

burning. Residue management strategies must be evaluated for

their impact on sugarcane production, runoff, water quality, nutrient and pesticide transport and retention in the soil profile, and on

soil physical properties. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane Research Unit

at Houma, Louisiana and the ARS Soil and Water Research Unit

at Baton Rouge, Louisiana to develop Best Management Practices

(BMP) to ensure the economic production of sugarcane without adverse environmental damage.

Rice research.—The Committee recognizes the need for additional

research to help keep the U.S. rice industry competitive in the

global marketplace by assuring high yields, superior grain quality,

pest resistance, and stress tolerance. The Committee provides an

increase of $250,000 for this research to be carried out at the ARS

center in Stuttgart, Arkansas.

Seismic and acoustic technologies in soil research.—New acoustic

and seismic technologies open the path for improved and more efficient crop production practices. Use of these new technologies to

characterize soils, detect hard pan levels, assess water content, and

other applications must be accelerated to reduce crop production

costs and conserve energy, water, and soil. The Committee provides

an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS National

Sedimentation Laboratory at Oxford, Mississippi to accelerate research in this area.

Sorghum research.—Sorghum is an important grain crop in the

U.S. and worldwide. In 1999, the estimated value of sorghum in

the U.S. was $1.7 billion. In terms of grain and oilseed crops, sorghum follows corn, soybeans and wheat. Additional research is

needed to enhance the economic viability of this crop in the development of alternative uses; pest resistance, soils research and fundamental genetic and molecular research on drought and temperature stress. The Committee provides an increase of $1,950,000 for

sorghum utilization research at Manhattan, Kansas, $250,000; genetics and breeding at Stillwater, Oklahoma, $250,000; soil and

water related research at Bushland, Texas, $200,000; and to establish molecular/genetic research to address fundamental issues of

drought and temperature stress at Lubbock, Texas, $1,250,000.

29

Source Water Protective Initiatives.—The Committee recognizes

agricultural and environmental water quality issues related to

water movement through agricultural drainage systems serving as

conduits for movement of pollutants into surface water systems.

The management of subsurface or groundwater flow can have a

major effect on pesticides and soil erosion. The Committee provides

an increase of $300,000 to the Soil Drainage Research Unit in Columbus, Ohio to implement the Source Water Protective Initiative

in the Upper Big Walnut Creek Watershed. The Committee also

provides an increase of $300,000 to the National Soil Erosion Laboratory in West Lafayette, Indiana, to implement the Source Water

Protective Initiative in the St. Joseph River Watershed to address

the problem of surface runoff and transport of sediment and agricultural chemicals and nutrients from fields and agricultural lands.

Southwest pecan research.—Pecan is the most valuable native

North American nut crop. The Committee recognizes the need to

strengthen research to increase pecan production. This research

emphasizes development of improved cultivars and rootstocks; collection and maintenance of germplasm, and development of host

plant resistance to control pecan insects and diseases. An addition

of $300,000 is provided in fiscal year 2002 for this research, which

is conducted at the College Station and Brownwood, Texas, research stations.

Soybean and nitrogen fixation.—The ARS Soybean and Nitrogen

Fixation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina, has been widely recognized for its work in developing higher-value soybeans that improve profitability for farmers. Scientists at this laboratory require

additional resources in their efforts to develop new varieties that

have drought tolerance and improved oil and protein quality. The

Committee provides an increase of $400,000 for this research.

Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center.—The Stuttgart

National Aquaculture Research Center benefits the aquaculture industry enormously with its research on disease control production

improvements, stress tolerance, and food quality. The Committee

provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to expand the

research carried out at this aquaculture center.

Sudden Oak disease.—Since 1995, oak trees have been dying in

large numbers along the California and Oregon coasts. The disease

has spread to other plants including rhododendron and

huckleberry. There is great potential for this disease to spread

throughout the country. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 to conduct research to identify causative agents and diagnostic tools. The primary focus of this research is the ARS Ft.

Detrick research laboratory.

Sugarbeet research.—The Committee is aware of the importance

of the sugarbeet research at Ft. Collins, Colorado. The Committee

directs the ARS to fund this project at the fiscal year 2001 level.

Sugarcane variety research.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane Research Station at Canal Point, Florida. There funds will be used toward strengthening and expanding the breeding, pathology, and

soil conservation projects currently in progress. This ARS station

provides the necessary breed stock for sugarcane growers in Texas,

Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.

30

Sustainable vineyards practices position.—The Committee pro- vides an increase of $300,000 for the sustainable vineyards practices position at UC-Davis. This research position will be responsible for the development of biologically and environmentally sound

practices for grape growing which enhance compatibility with soil,

water, air, and biotic resources.

U.S. National Arboretum.—The U.S. National Arboretum’s Gardens Unit is responsible for maintaining the garden displays, collections, and grounds of the 446 acre campus in northeast Washington, D.C. The collections include valuable germplasm of species

and cultivated plants that are used by researchers, the ornamental

horticultural trade, gardeners, and the general public throughout

the country. The Committee provides an increase of $325,000 to

maintain, document and distribute germplasm and increase efforts

to disseminate information on ornamental horticulture.

Vaccines and microbe control for fish health.—Diseases and toxins produced by algae and microbes in the water are the most serious problems affecting the billion dollar fish farming industry, including channel catfish. Stressful conditions caused by factors such

as crowding and high feeding levels to increase growth rates act to

suppress the resistance of fish to disease. Farmers lack preventive

methods to combat the diseases and toxins. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Fish

Diseases and Parasites Research Unit at Auburn, Alabama in collaboration with Auburn University for problem-focused research urgently needed to develop vaccines that safely and effectively prevent diseases and toxicity, and identify gene resistance of fish to

disease and toxicity.

Virus diseases of vegetables.—The Committee recognizes the need

to increase research efforts to determine the etiology and epidemiology of emerging virus diseases of vegetables. Research will focus

on virus-resistant vegetable germplasm and development of integrated disease control methods. The Committee provides $500,000

to the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory at Charleston, South Carolina, as

requested.

Viticulture research.—The Committee is aware of the importance

of the grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest and of the

work being conducted by ARS in cooperation with the University

of Idaho. The Committee provides an additional $150,000 to ARS

for expanded research in fiscal year 2002.

Water resources management research.—Water quality and water

resource management continue to be priority issues for agriculture

and the environment. Research is needed to enhance water management initiatives regionally and nationally. The Committee concurs with the need to investigate the network of stream flow, precipitation, groundwater, water quality, and land use information

for the entire Suwannee River Basin. The Committee provides an

increase of $500,000 for the Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory to carry out this research in cooperation with the University

of Georgia and the Suwannee River Water Management District. In

addition, new technologies to improve water use efficiency and

quality at both a state and watershed scale should be expedited.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002

to the ARS research station at Tifton, GA, for this work. This inVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.002 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
31

crease will be used to advance the discovery and use of economical

precision water application technologies for water conservation and

water quality and to develop accurate source, impact and solution

information on water quality concerns related to total maximum

daily loading (TMDL’s) of critical streams in the region.

Wheat quality research.—The Committee supports ARS’ ongoing

wheat research program, and recognizes the need for additional research to improve competitiveness and export quality in hard

wheat, club wheat, durum wheat, soft red wheat, and white wheat.

The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for this research

to be carried out at the ARS research locations in Pullman, Washington; Wooster, Ohio; Manhattan, Kansas; and Fargo, North Dakota.

Wild rice research.—The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the wild rice breeding and

germplasm improvement cooperative project directed at the ARS

research station in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Woody ornamental genomics and breeding for the Southeast.—Ornamental horticulture is valued at $11 billion annually in farm

gate receipts. Expansion of this industry in Tennessee and other

Appalachian States would help offset the declining value of other

traditional agricultural products such as tobacco, dairying, and feed

grain. However, profitable expansion of ornamental horticulture is

impeded by insect, disease, and nematode pests, which also cause

extensive chemical usage. The Committee provides an increase of

$400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for cooperative research with the ARS

research station at Poplarville, Mississippi, and the University of

Tennessee Institute of Agriculture.

Seed Stock.—The Committee is concerned that as more ownership of seed stock rests in private rather than in the public domain,

the ability to maintain an inventory of stock for future national

needs becomes more difficult. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report in advance of the fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the scope and condition of known collections of seed

stocks in the United States and around the world, what steps are

being taken to identify and catalogue privately and publicly held

seed stock and where such stock might be reposited. Further, this

report shall also detail the ability and limits faced by the Department in developing new seed stock varieties for American agriculture, and what might be the most critical immediate and medium term needs to assure the broadest representation of

germplasm in seed stocks over which the United States can maintain access and assure quality.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,037,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 30,462,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 78,862,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,825,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +48,400,000

The ARS Buildings and Facilities account was established for the

acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, extension,

alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities which diVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.002 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
32

rectly or indirectly support research and extension programs of the

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

contained in the regular account.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the

Committee provides an appropriation of $78,862,000, an increase of

$4,825,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $48,400,000 above the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s provisions:

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Arizona:

U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratories, Maricopa .................................. 0 $8,400

California:

Western Regional Research Center, Albany ........................................................................... $3,800 3,800

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

District of Columbia:

U.S. National Arboretum ......................................................................................................... 4,600 4,600

Illinois:

Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria ............................................................................... 6,500 6,500

Iowa:

USDA Facility Consolidation and Modernization, Ames ......................................................... 0 40,000

Maryland:

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

New York:

Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport ..................................................................... 3,762 3,762

Pennsylvania:

Eastern Regional Research Center, Philadelphia .................................................................. 5,000 5,000

Total, Buildings and Facilities ........................................................................................... 30,462 78,862

U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton Research Laboratories.—The U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory (USWCL) was

constructed in 1959. The USWCL conducts research to increase

water use efficiency in agricultural production for the irrigated

West and to conserve and improve the quantity and quality of our

Nation’s water supplies. The Western Cotton Research Laboratory

(WCRL) was constructed in 1971. The WCRL conducts research to

increase the efficiency of producing cotton in the irrigated West to

ensure that U.S. cotton will be competitive in both price and quality in the world market. The ARS laboratories in Phoenix utilized

an adjacent University of Arizona research farm to conduct large

scale field plot experiments essential to support the water conservation and cotton production research programs. The University

established a new large farming and research facility near Maricopa. Due to the unavailability of field plot land near the Phoenix

location, the ARS researchers must now travel about 28 miles to

the Maricopa Agricultural Center (MAC) to conduct their field experiments. Existing facilities require extensive renovation and repair to meet safety and health codes and to provide modernized research facilities. To date $7,285,000 has been appropriated for new

33

facilities. The Committee provides an additional $8,400,000 toward

the design and construction requirements of the replacement facilities at Maricopa.

USDA Facility Consolidation and Modernization.—The Department has developed a master plan to construct new animal facilities to replace and modernize the National Animal Disease Center

(NADC), the National Veterinary Service Laboratories (NVSL), and

the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB), which are all located in

Ames, Iowa.

Together, these three operations occupy a 480 acre site and are

housed in 103 buildings with 750,000 square feet of space. There

are 548 total staff members, with an annual budget of $45 million.

Because of space constraints, needs have been partially met by

renting laboratory space at strip malls and office parks elsewhere

in Ames for the past 29 years. Existing facilities are grossly debilitated and inadequate for animal health programs of high national

priority.

Consumers rely on USDA to be prepared to deal with known and

emerging diseases that are a rapidly growing threat because of increased travel, trade, concentration, and pathogen resistance. This

threat is not theoretical, but very real, as underscored this year

with foot and mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(mad cow disease). This threat affects producers, consumers, and

the economic well-being of us all. USDA’s research and diagnostic

capability is crucial to preparedness and rapid response in the face

of this threat.

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 to meet the urgent

need to begin to consolidate and modernize existing animal research and diagnostic facilities. It is the Committee’s view that this

project is crucial to fulfilling USDA’s mission to ensure a safe food

supply and to expand global markets for agricultural products and

services. This multi-year construction effort is a cost-effective approach including utility infrastructure replacement, new facility

construction, renovation of existing facilities, elimination of the

need for rental space, and demolition of totally obsolete facilities.

As part of its recommendation, the Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report within 60 days of enactment of this

Act, and quarterly thereafter until completion, on the execution

status of this project, on the scope and schedule of remaining construction increments, and on cost reduction initiatives taken to assure that this project will remain within program requirements.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center.—The Committee recommends $3,762,000, as requested, for repair and maintenance of

buildings and supporting infrastructure at the Plum Island Animal

Disease Center at Greenport, NY. The Committee notes that no

funds are requested for planning or executing an upgrade of the

Center to Biosafety Level 4, and no funds are provided for this purpose. Funds are provided for the following projects:

Coastal erosion control measures ...................................................... $1,500,000

Clean-up of construction debris site ................................................. 500,000

Potable water system/miscellaneous small projects/ contingencies 1,762,000

Total .......................................................................................... 3,762,000

34

Raleigh, North Carolina.—The Committee requests the Agricultural Research Service to provide a report on the requirements, feasibility, and scope for construction of a facility to consolidate personnel in Raleigh, North Carolina. The report should provide information on building size, cost, and a list of primary associated facilities including, but not limited to, laboratory space, greenhouse facilities, and quarantine areas.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

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

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

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

with university partners to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people, communities, and

the Nation.

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $505,079,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 407,319,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 507,452,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,373,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +100,133,000

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands, and by approved schools of forestry, the 1890 landgrant colleges and Tuskegee University, the 1994 Native American

land-grant institutions, and other eligible institutions. Administration of payments and grants involves the approval of each research

proposal to be financed in whole or in part from Federal grant

funds; the continuous review and evaluation of research and higher

education programs and expenditures thereunder; and the encouragement of cooperation within and between the states and with the

research programs of the Department of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $180,148,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

35

For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $21,884,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee Uni- versity, the Committee provides an appropriation of $32,604,000,

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same

as the budget request.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Research Activities:

Payments under the Hatch Act ............................................................... $180,148 $180,148 $180,148

Cooperative Forestry Research (McIntire-Stennis) ................................... 21,884 21,884 21,884

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

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

Advanced genetic technologies (KY) ....................................................... 474 0 474

Advanced spatial technologies (MS) ....................................................... 998 0 998

Aegilops cylindricum (jointed goatgrass) (WA) ....................................... 359 0 459

Aflatoxin (IL) ............................................................................................ 131 0 0

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

Agricultural diversity/Red River Corridor (MN, ND) ................................. 374 0 500

Agricultural telecommunications (NY) ..................................................... 424 0 0

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA) ........................................... 349 0 0

Agriculture water usage (GA) .................................................................. 299 0 0

Agroecology (MD) ..................................................................................... 284 0 500

Alliance for food protection (GA, NE) ...................................................... 299 0 299

Alternative crops (ND) ............................................................................. 624 0 0

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

Alternative nutrient management (VT) .................................................... 190 0 0

Alternative salmon products (AK) ............................................................ 644 0 0

Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS) .............................. 1,631 0 1,631

Apple fire blight (MI, NY) ........................................................................ 499 0 499

Aquaculture (AR) ...................................................................................... 237 0 237

Aquaculture (FL) ...................................................................................... 445 0 500

Aquaculture (LA) ...................................................................................... 329 0 329

Aquaculture (MS) ..................................................................................... 591 0 591

Aquaculture (NC) ..................................................................................... 299 0 299

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

Aquaculture (WA) ..................................................................................... 284 0 284

Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV) ......................... 748 0 0

Asparagus technology and production (WA) ........................................... 225 0 225

Babcock Institute (WI) ............................................................................. 599 0 600

Beef technology transfer (MO) ................................................................. 284 0 0

Biobased technology (MI) ........................................................................ 284 0 0

Bioinformatics (VA) .................................................................................. 474 0 0

Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS) .............................................. 900 0 900

Biotechnology (NC) ................................................................................... 284 0 284

Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA) ......................... 247 0 247

Bovine tuberculosis (MI) .......................................................................... 324 0 0

Brucellosis vaccine (MT) .......................................................................... 495 0 495

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

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

Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD) .......................................................... 175 0 300

Chesapeake Bay aquaculture .................................................................. 391 0 0

Citrus canker (FL) .................................................................................... 4,740 0 500

Citrus tristeza .......................................................................................... 740 0 740

Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA) ........................................ 679 0 679

Cool season legume research (ID, WA) ................................................... 328 0 328

Cotton fiber quality (GA) ......................................................................... 0 0 500

Cranberry/blueberry (MA) ......................................................................... 175 0 175

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

36

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

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

Dairy farm profitability (PA) .................................................................... 284 0 284

Delta rural revitalization (MS) ................................................................. 205 0 205

Designing foods for health (TX) .............................................................. 562 0 562

Diaprepes/root weevil (FL) ....................................................................... 394 0 500

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

Ecosystems (AL) ....................................................................................... 499 0 0

Efficient irrigation (NM, TX) .................................................................... 1,185 0 1,200

Environmental biotechnology (RI) ............................................................ 190 0 190

Environmental horticulture (FL) ............................................................... 284 0 500

Environmental research (NY) ................................................................... 399 0 399

Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY) .................................................. 227 0 227

Environmentally-safe products (VT) ........................................................ 245 0 0

Exotic pest diseases (CA) ........................................................................ 1,247 0 2,000

Expanded wheat pasture (OK) ................................................................. 292 0 292

Farm injuries and illnesses (NC) ............................................................ 284 0 284

Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT) .................................................... 692 0 692

Fish and shellfish technologies (VA) ....................................................... 474 0 474

Floriculture (HI) ........................................................................................ 249 0 249

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO) ........................ 948 0 1,000

Food irradiation (IA) ................................................................................. 225 0 250

Food Marketing Policy Center (CT) .......................................................... 494 0 494

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

Food quality (AK) ..................................................................................... 349 0 0

Food safety (AL) ....................................................................................... 520 0 0

Food safety research consortium (NY) .................................................... 284 0 1,000

Food security (WA) ................................................................................... 0 0 500

Food Systems Research Group (WI) ......................................................... 499 0 500

Forages for advancing livestock production (KY) ................................... 374 0 0

Forestry (AR) ............................................................................................ 522 0 522

Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO) ....................................... 347 0 0

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

Global change/ultraviolet radiation ......................................................... 1,431 1,431 1,431

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

Grass seed cropping for sustainable agriculture (ID, OR, WA) .............. 422 0 422

Human nutrition (IA) ................................................................................ 472 0 472

Human nutrition (LA) ............................................................................... 750 0 750

Human nutrition (NY) .............................................................................. 621 0 621

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

Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology ............................................. 1,239 0 1,239

Improved dairy management practices (PA) ........................................... 397 0 397

Improved early detection of crop diseases (NC) ..................................... 198 0 198

Improved fruit practices (MI) .................................................................. 444 0 0

Infectious disease research (CO) ............................................................ 299 0 299

Institute for Food Science & Engineering (AR) ....................................... 1,247 0 1,247

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

Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND) ....................................... 142 0 142

International arid lands consortium ........................................................ 494 0 494

Iowa Biotechnology Consortium ............................................................... 1,561 0 1,561

Livestock and Dairy Policy (NY, TX) ........................................................ 569 0 569

Livestock genome sequencing (IL) .......................................................... 0 0 500

Lowbush blueberry research (ME) ........................................................... 259 0 259

Maple research (VT) ................................................................................. 119 0 0

Meadowfoam (OR) .................................................................................... 299 0 299

Michigan biotechnology consortium ........................................................ 723 0 491

Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance .................................... 461 0 461

Midwest agricultural products (IA) .......................................................... 645 0 645

Midwest poultry consortium (IA) .............................................................. 0 0 500

Milk safety (PA) ....................................................................................... 374 0 750

Minor use animal drugs .......................................................................... 549 549 549

Molluscan shellfish (OR) ......................................................................... 399 0 399

37

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Multi-commodity research (OR) ............................................................... 363 0 363

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

National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY) ....................... 284 0 350

National biological impact assessment .................................................. 253 253 0

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

Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV) .................................................. 299 0 299

New crop opportunities (AK) .................................................................... 495 0 0

New crop opportunities (KY) .................................................................... 723 0 0

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

Nursery, greenhouse, turf specialties (AL) .............................................. 284 0 400

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

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

Oyster post harvest treatment (FL) ......................................................... 0 0 500

Pasture and forage research (UT) ........................................................... 249 0 249

Peach tree short life (SC) ........................................................................ 179 0 179

Peanut allergy reduction (AL) .................................................................. 499 0 0

Pest control alternatives (SC) ................................................................. 117 0 117

Phytophthora root rot (NM) ...................................................................... 138 0 138

Pierce’s disease (CA) ............................................................................... 1,896 0 2,000

Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging (NM) .............. 249 0 249

Potato research ........................................................................................ 1,447 0 1,447

Precision agriculture (KY) ........................................................................ 748 0 0

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

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

Produce pricing (AZ) ................................................................................ 76 0 0

Protein utilization (IA) .............................................................................. 190 0 0

Rangeland ecosystems (NM) ................................................................... 299 0 299

Red snapper research (AL) ...................................................................... 723 0 1,200

Regional barley gene mapping project ................................................... 587 0 587

Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX) ........................... 293 0 293

Rice modeling (AR) .................................................................................. 295 0 0

Rural Development Centers (PA, IA, ND, MS, OR, LA) ............................ 522 522 700

Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO) ....................................... 820 0 1,300

Russian wheat aphid (CO) ...................................................................... 249 0 249

Safe vegetable production (GA) ............................................................... 284 0 0

Satsuma orange research (AL) ................................................................ 474 0 1,000

Sclerotina disease research (MN) ............................................................ 237 0 0

Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing and marketing (MS) 304 0 304

Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK) ............................. 1,165 0 0

Seafood safety (MA) ................................................................................. 277 0 500

Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID) ........................................................... 324 0 400

Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources ............. 368 0 400

Soybean cyst nematode (MO) .................................................................. 599 0 700

STEEP—water quality in the Pacific Northwest ..................................... 499 0 600

Sustainable agriculture (CA) ................................................................... 392 0 500

Sustainable agriculture (MI) .................................................................... 444 0 0

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA) .............................. 100 0 125

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

Sustainable beef supply (MT) .................................................................. 742 0 742

Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources (VA) ........ 0 0 500

Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT) ......................... 461 0 461

Swine and other animal waste management (NC) ................................. 499 0 499

Technological development of renewable resources (MO) ...................... 284 0 300

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

Tomato wilt virus (GA) ............................................................................. 249 0 249

Tropical aquaculture (FL) ........................................................................ 198 0 198

Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR .............................................. 3,854 0 10,000

Turkey carna virus (IN) ............................................................................ 200 0 0

Value-added product development from agricultural resources (MT) .... 331 0 331

Value-added products (IL) ....................................................................... 95 0 150

Vidalia onions (GA) .................................................................................. 249 0 0

38

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA) ........................................................ 1,497 0 2,000

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

Water use efficiency and water quality enhancements (GA) .................. 0 0 600

Weed control (ND) .................................................................................... 435 0 435

Wetland plants (LA) ................................................................................. 599 0 599

Wheat genetic research (KS) ................................................................... 260 0 260

Wheat sawfly research (MT) .................................................................... 331 0 331

Wood utilization (AK, ID, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, TN) ......................... 5,773 0 5,773

Wool research (TX, MT, WY) ..................................................................... 299 0 300

Adjustment for rounding .......................................................................... 3 0 0

Subtotal, Special Research Grants ..................................................... 85,481 2,755 82,409

Improved pest control:

Emerging pests/critical issues ................................................................ 200 200 200

Expert IPM decision support system ....................................................... 177 177 177

Integrated pest management .................................................................. 2,725 2,725 2,725

IR-4 minor crop pest management ......................................................... 8,970 8,970 11,000

Pest management alternatives ................................................................ 1,619 1,619 1,619

Subtotal, Improved pest control .......................................................... 13,691 13,691 15,721

National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants .................................... 105,767 105,767 105,767

Animal health and disease (sec. 1433) ........................................................... 5,098 5,098 5,098

Alternative crops:

Canola ...................................................................................................... 599 0 600

Hesperaloe and other natural products from desert plants ................... 199 0 350

Critical Agricultural Materials Act .................................................................... 639 0 639

1994 Institutions research program ................................................................. 998 998 998

Institution challenge grants ............................................................................. 4,340 4,340 4,340

Graduate fellowships grants ............................................................................ 2,993 2,993 2,993

Multicultural scholars program ........................................................................ 998 998 998

Hispanic education partnership grants ............................................................ 3,492 3,492 3,492

Capacity building grants (1890 institutions) .................................................. 9,479 9,479 9,479

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ................................................................... 1,549 1,549 1,549

Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions education

grants ........................................................................................................... 2,993 2,993 2,993

Secondary agriculture education ...................................................................... 798 798 1,000

Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE ................................... 9,230 9,230 12,000

Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475) ...................................................................... 3,991 3,991 3,991

Federal Administration:

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA) ........................................... 0 0 450

Agriculture development in the American Pacific ................................... 563 0 563

Agriculture waste utilization (WV) ........................................................... 495 0 0

Agriculture water policy (GA) ................................................................... 365 0 750

Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND) .................................. 258 0 300

Animal waste management (OK) ............................................................. 274 0 0

Aquaculture (OH) ..................................................................................... 0 0 500

Biotechnology (MS) .................................................................................. 590 0 0

Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA) ............................... 427 0 750

Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH) ........................................... 759 0 781

Center for North American Studies (TX) .................................................. 87 0 250

Climate change research (FL) ................................................................. 170 0 0

Cotton research (TX) ................................................................................ 499 0 1,000

Data Information System ......................................................................... 2,120 2,120 2,120

Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO) ....................................... 0 0 347

Geographic information system ............................................................... 1,023 0 1,025

Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH) ................................... 100 0 100

Livestock marketing information center (CO) ......................................... 185 0 0

Mariculture (NC) ...................................................................................... 324 0 324

Mississippi Valley State University .......................................................... 646 0 0

39

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (GA) .................................. 399 0 0

Office of Extramural Programs ................................................................ 448 448 448

Pay costs and FERS ................................................................................. 1,098 1,594 1,732

Peer Panels .............................................................................................. 349 349 349

PM–10 air quality study (WA) ................................................................. 435 0 435

Precision agriculture/geospatial training and application center (AL) .. 586 0 0

Precision agriculture/Tennessee valley research and extension center

(AL) ...................................................................................................... 147 0 600

Produce pricing (AZ) ................................................................................ 0 0 76

Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC, TX) .................................. 4,168 0 4,168

Sustainable agriculture development (OH) ............................................. 474 0 500

Urban silviculture (NY) ............................................................................ 237 0 237

Water quality (IL) ..................................................................................... 348 0 0

Water quality (ND) ................................................................................... 394 0 394

Wetland plants (WV) ................................................................................ 142 0 200

Adjustment for rounding .......................................................................... ¥20 0

Subtotal, Federal Administration ........................................................ 18,108 4,511 18,399

Total, Research and Education Activities ........................................... 505,079 407,319 507,452

1 Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $7,100,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,100,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,100,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized

by Public Law 103–382 provides authority to establish an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (31 tribal controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational opportunities for Native Americans by building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, curricula

development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems, and

scientific instrumentation for teaching. Beginning in 2001, funds

also are available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and

maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary

shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal

year, and after making adjustments for the cost of administering

the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income as follows:

sixty percent of the adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro-rata

basis, the proportionate share being based on the Indian student

count; and forty percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed

in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the

Committee provides $7,100,000, the same as the amount available

in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

40

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $432,475,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 413,404,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 436,029,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +3,554,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +22,625,000

Cooperative agricultural extension work was established by the

Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The legislation authorizes the Department of Agriculture to give, through the landgrant institutions, instruction and practical demonstrations in agricultural and home economics and related subjects, and to encourage the application of such information by means of demonstrations, publications, and otherwise to persons not attending or a

resident in the colleges. In addition, the Service provides nutrition

training to low-income families, 4–H Club work, and educational

assistance such as community resource development.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $436,029,000, an increase of $3,554,000 above the amount

available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $22,625,000 above

the budget request.

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee:

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c) ................................................................................... $275,940 $275,940 $275,940

Smith-Lever section 3(d):

Farm safety ................................................................................................................ 3,991 0 5,800

Food and nutrition education .................................................................................... 58,566 58,566 58,566

Indian reservation agents .......................................................................................... 1,996 1,996 1,996

Pest management ...................................................................................................... 10,759 10,759 10,759

Rural development centers ........................................................................................ 906 906 906

Sustainable agriculture ............................................................................................. 3,792 3,792 5,000

Youth at risk .............................................................................................................. 8,481 8,481 8,481

Youth farm safety education and certification ......................................................... 499 499 499

Renewable Resources Extension Act .................................................................................. 3,185 3,185 3,185

1890 Colleges and Tuskegee University ............................................................................. 28,181 28,181 28,181

1890 facilities grants ......................................................................................................... 12,173 12,173 12,173

Rural health and safety education .................................................................................... 2,622 0 2,622

Extension services at the 1994 institutions ...................................................................... 3,273 3,273 3,273

Adjustment for rounding ..................................................................................................... ¥100

Subtotal ................................................................................................................. 414,363 407,751 417,381

Federal Administration:

After-school program (CA) ......................................................................................... 398 0 0

Ag in the classroom .................................................................................................. 451 451 750

Agricultural telecommunications (NY) ....................................................................... 0 0 424

Beef producers improvement (AR) ............................................................................. 197 0 197

Botanical garden initiative (IL) ................................................................................. 237 0 0

Conservation technology transfer (WI) ...................................................................... 474 0 500

Dairy education (IA) ................................................................................................... 237 0 0

Delta Teachers Academy ............................................................................................ 3,492 0 3,492

Diabetes detection, prevention (WA) ......................................................................... 924 0 924

41

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Efficient irrigation (NM/TX) ........................................................................................ 1,896 0 2,000

Extension specialist (MS) .......................................................................................... 100 0 100

Family farm beef industry network (OH) ................................................................... 1,317 0 1,400

Food animal residue avoidance database/FARAD ..................................................... 284 0 1,000

Food Electronically and Effectively Distributed (FEED) demonstration project (OR) 167 0 0

Income enhancement demonstration (OH) ................................................................ 245 0 246

Integrated cow/calf management (IA) ....................................................................... 284 0 300

National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA) ............................................................... 195 0 200

Pilot technology transfer (WI) .................................................................................... 163 0 163

Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS) ............................................................................ 325 0 325

Potato pest management (WI) ................................................................................... 190 0 200

Range improvement (NM) .......................................................................................... 197 0 197

Rural development (AK) ............................................................................................. 617 0 0

Rural development (NM) ............................................................................................ 279 0 454

Rural rehabilitation (GA) ........................................................................................... 245 0 245

Vocational agriculture (OK) ....................................................................................... 275 0 0

Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY) ................................................ 197 0 197

General administration and pay ................................................................................ 4,726 5,202 5,334

Total, Federal Administration ................................................................................ 18,112 5,653 18,648

Total, Extension Activities ..................................................................................... 432,475 413,404 436,029

1 Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

Farm Safety: AgrAbility.—Within the funds provided for SmithLever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends $4,600,000

for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with disabilities to

be able to farm safely, efficiently, and profitably through on-thefarm education and assistance.

Income enhancement demonstration (OH).—The Committee expects that the Agricultural Business Enhancement Center will intensify its efforts in identifying and pursuing improved business

practices and alternative market opportunities, including those related to sales at or through Farmers’ Markets.

Prairie State Wilderness Walk.—The Committee encourages the

Department to support the enhancement of the Prairie State Wilderness Walk in Chicago.

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,849,000

2002 budget estimates ....................................................................... 41,849,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 43,355,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,506,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,506,000

Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants program. Programs included support multifunctional projects that integrate research,

education and extension components.

42

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted 1

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program:

Water Quality ..................................................................................... $12,971 $12,971 $12,971

Food Safety ........................................................................................ 14,967 14,967 14,967

Pesticide Impact Assessment ............................................................ 4,531 4,531 4,531

Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation ........................................ 1,497 1,497 1,497

FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems .......... 4,889 4,889 4,889

Methyl Bromide Transition Program .................................................. 2,495 2,495 2,500

Organic Transition Program ............................................................... 499 499 2,000

Total, Integrated Activities ............................................................ 41,849 41,849 43,355

1 Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $43,355,000, an increase of $1,506,000 above the amount

available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $1,506,000 above

the budget request.

Water Quality: Farm*A*Syst.—Within funds provided for Water

Quality under the Integrated Activities account, the Department is

encouraged to give consideration to $2,000,000 for the

Farm*A*Syst program, to expand this voluntary pollution prevention program which has been utilized in Skaneateles Lake and

Cortland County, NY, to help farmers and residential owners identify pollution risks on their property.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $634,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 654,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 660,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +26,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +6,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws

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

competitive marketing practices of livestock, marketing orders and

various programs; veterinary services; and plant protection and

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$660,000, an increase of $26,000 above the amount available for

fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget request.

43

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations User Fees 1 Total, APHIS

Appropriations

2001 appropriation 1 ........... $444,584,000 $84,813,000 $529,397,000

2002 budget estimate ......... 618,112,000 84,813,000 702,925,000

Provided in the bill ............. 502,573,000 84,813,000 587,386,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...... +57,989,000 ............................ +57,989,000

2002 budget estimate .. ¥115,539,000 ............................ ¥115,539,000 1 Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996

direct appropriations.

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.

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

exotic diseases and pests.

Pest and Disease Management Programs.—The agency carries

out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and animal

diseases that threaten the United States; reduce agricultural losses

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

assistance to cooperators such as states, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; and ensure compliance with interstate

movement and other disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the agency.

Animal Care.—The agency conducts regulatory activities which

ensure the humane care and treatment of animals as required by

the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These activities include inspection of certain establishments that handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.

Scientific and Technical Services.—The agency performs other

regulatory activities, including the development of standards for

the licensing and testing of veterinary biologicals to ensure their

safety and effectiveness; diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication programs in other functional components; applied research aimed at reducing economic damage from vertebrate

animals; development of new pest and animal damage control

methods and tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—User fees are collected to

cover the cost of inspection and quarantine activities at U.S. ports

of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.

44

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted

FY 2002

request

Committee

provisions

1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:

Agricultural quarantine inspection ................................................................ $38,884 $47,254 47,254

User fees 1 ..................................................................................................... 84,813 84,813 84,813

Subtotal, AQI ............................................................................................. 123,697 132,067 132,067

Cattle ticks .................................................................................................... 5,264 5,732 6,232

Foot-and-mouth disease ................................................................................ 3,795 3,839 3,839

Import/export .................................................................................................. 7,010 8,132 8,132

Trade issues resolution management ........................................................... 8,187 11,367 11,367

Fruit fly exclusion and detection ................................................................... 32,538 56,018 34,818

Screwworm ..................................................................................................... 30,308 30,557 30,557

Tropical bont tick ........................................................................................... 406 415 415

Total, Pest and Disease Exclusion ............................................................ 211,205 248,127 227,427

2. Plant and Animal Health Monitoring:

Animal health monitoring and surveillance .................................................. 68,502 71,531 73,306

Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement ......................................... 6,249 6,601 7,601

Emergency management system ................................................................... 2,990 3,044 5,044

Pest detection ................................................................................................ 6,714 6,844 6,844

Total, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring .............................................. 84,455 88,020 92,795

3. Pest and Disease Management Programs:

Aquaculture .................................................................................................... 918 940 940

Biocontrol ....................................................................................................... 8,300 8,759 8,759

Boll weevil ...................................................................................................... 78,983 33,931 33,931

Brucellosis eradication .................................................................................. 9,921 8,450 8,450

Emerging plant pests .................................................................................... 3,525 99,492 48,515

Golden nematode ........................................................................................... 579 610 1,010

Gypsy moth .................................................................................................... 4,407 4,559 4,559

Imported fire ant ........................................................................................... 2,095 2,118 2,118

Noxious weeds ................................................................................................ 1,122 1,130 1,130

Pink bollworm ................................................................................................ 1,545 1,616 1,616

Pseudorabies .................................................................................................. 4,030 34,570 4,151

Scrapie eradication ........................................................................................ 3,017 21,019 3,119

Tuberculosis ................................................................................................... 5,462 18,552 5,649

Wildlife services operations ........................................................................... 36,700 54,456 56,956

Witchweed ...................................................................................................... 1,503 1,520 1,520

Total, Pest and Disease Management ...................................................... 162,107 291,722 182,423

4. Animal Care:

Animal welfare ............................................................................................... 12,140 12,767 15,167

Horse protection ............................................................................................. 397 415 415

Total, Animal Care .................................................................................... 12,537 13,182 15,582

5. Scientific and Technical Services:

Biotechnology/environmental protection ........................................................ 9,999 10,516 10,516

Integrated systems acquisition project ......................................................... 998 998 2,500

Plant methods development laboratories ...................................................... 4,796 5,118 5,118

Veterinary biologics ........................................................................................ 10,727 11,413 11,413

Veterinary diagnostics ................................................................................... 17,476 18,278 18,278

45

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted

FY 2002

request

Committee

provisions

WS methods development .............................................................................. 11,001 11,455 12,955

Total, Scientific and Technical Services ................................................... 54,997 57,778 60,780

6. Contingency fund ............................................................................................... 4,096 4,096 4,096

7. Pay parity ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... 4,283

Total, Salaries and Expenses .................................................................... 529,397 702,925 587,386

Recap (Salaries and Expenses):

Appropriated ................................................................................................... 444,584 618,112 502,573

AQI user fees ................................................................................................. 84,813 84,813 84,813

Total, Salaries and Expenses .................................................................... 529,397 702,925 587,386

1 Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct appro- priation.

Agricultural quarantine inspection.—The Committee encourages

APHIS to explore the use of computer tomography technology to

more effectively execute its contraband interception mission.

Cattle ticks.—The Committee has provided $6,232,000 for the

cattle tick eradication program. The Committee notes that there

are at least two vacant inspector positions (Mission and Brownsville, TX), that have gone unfilled for lack of funds, the program’s

vehicle fleet of 60 vehicles all have over 80,000 miles each, and existing radio equipment needs replacing. The Committee has included an additional $500,000 over the President’s request for this

program. The Committee expects the Agency to fill at least two inspector vacancies, replace at least 5 vehicles, and ensure that the

radio equipment is up-to-date.

Fruit fly.—The Committee has provided $34,818,000 for the fruit

fly program. The Committee has included an additional $2,000,000

to address the inequity in the distribution of funds for fruit fly

trapping in Florida and California. The Committee directs the

Agency to increase the California fruit fly trapping program by

$2,000,000 to close the gap in the distribution of funds.

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHM&S).—The

Committee provides an additional $750,000 for the National Poultry Improvement Plan. The Committee expects APHIS to use the

additional funds to increase the number of Salmonella isolates to

be serotyped, and to increase the number of antigen/antiserum test

kits for avian influenza.

Within the amount provided for AHM&S, $4,000,000 is available

for pseudorabies monitoring and surveillance.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2001 level for the National Farm Identification Records Project for

Dairy Cattle to be coordinated with the Holstein Association.

The Committee has included an increase of $1,000,000 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

46

National Farm Animal Identification Project to ensure that duplication of program does not occur.

Animal and Plant health regulatory enforcement.—The Committee has provided $7,601,000 for animal and plant health regulatory enforcement. The Committee has included an increase of

$1,000,000 for investigative enforcement, and expects the Agency to

hire additional investigators to begin addressing the backlog of animal care investigations.

Emergency Management System.—The Committee has provided $5,044,000 for the Emergency Management System, an increase of

$2,000,000 above the President’s request. The Committee expects

APHIS to place emergency managers in the Federal Emergency

Management Agency regions across the country. The Committee

encourages APHIS to use the funds to make grants to States to establish animal health emergency standards and programs.

The Committee directs APHIS to determine if existing quantitative tools are available to assess the effectiveness of local government planned responses to potential outbreaks of bovine diseases, and to report to the Committee on Appropriations what existing quantitive tools are available by December 1, 2001.

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee

(GYIBC).—The Committee provides $600,000 for the GYIBC and

encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and private actions

aimed at eliminating brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone area.

Emerging Plant Pests.—The Committee has provided $48,515,000 for the emerging plant pests program including: $3,618,000 for the

base program; $10,000,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter; and

$34,897,000 to augment CCC transfers to combat emergency outbreaks of citrus canker, Asian longhorned beetle, and plum pox

virus.

The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to continue

to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the

Commodity Credit Corporation for the arrest and eradication of

animal and plant pests and diseases that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing the work that has begun to combat emergency outbreaks.

The Committee notes that funds appropriated in this bill are

subject to obligation within the fiscal year for which they are appropriated while funds transferred from the CCC are available

until expended. For example, according to USDA’s fiscal year 2002

budget justifications, there is about $65,000,000 in CCC funds that

was transferred in fiscal year 2000 that was still available for obligation as of April 9, 2001. If those funds had been appropriated,

they would not have been available in fiscal year 2001. The use of

the Secretary’s emergency authority places the Department in a

better position to respond to emergencies, more so than the annual

budget and appropriations cycle that takes about 18 months to

complete.

The Committee is aware of the emerging problem that the olive

fly is having on the olive industry and directs APHIS to provide

adequate resources to combat this pest.

Golden nemotode.— The Committee has included an increase of

$400,000 for golden nematode control efforts in New York. The

47

Committee directs APHIS to coordinate the use of added funds

with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

and Cornell University.

Wildlife Services.—The Committee directs the continuation of the

following programs that were included in fiscal year 2001: $250,000

for wildlife services to contain crop and aquaculture losses in

southeastern Missouri; $625,000 for a cooperative agreement with

Georgia Wildlife Services and the University of Georgia to conduct

research on and control of game bird predation in Georgia;

$100,000 for trapping in Virginia to combat increased predation by

coyotes; $100,000 for wildlife biologist to serve North Florida,

southeast Louisiana, and southwest Georgia; $150,000 for blackbird control efforts for reduction in blackbird damage to rice;

$240,000 for rodent control in Hawaii; and $1,000,000 for predator

control programs for livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and

Wyoming.

The Committee has included additional funding for the following

items in its fiscal year 2002 appropriation for Wildlife Services: an

additional $1,000,000 for aerial operations safety; an additional

$1,000,000 for Wildlife Services in the State of Texas to bring the

Federal cost-share into line with the national average; and an additional $500,000 for predator control in Montana, Wyoming, and

Idaho.

The Committee has provided $16,500,000 for rabies control efforts.

Animal welfare.—The Committee has provided $15,167,000 for animal welfare, an increase of $2,400,000 above the President’s request. The Committee directs APHIS to hire an additional 14 inspectors and support staff so that the overall number of inspections

can increase, and those facilities that are in non-compliance may

be reinspected more frequently.

Integrated Systems Acquisition Project.—The Committee has pro- vided $2,500,000, an increase of $1,502,000 above the President’s

request, for maintenance and replacement cost of network servers.

Wildlife Service Methods Development.—The Committee has provided $12,955,000, an increase of $1,500,000 above the President’s

request, for Wildlife Services Methods Development to addresss infrastructure deficiencies at the National Wildlife Research Center.

The Committee expects a report from APHIS on the extent of the

deficiencies at the NWRC and the associated costs to correct them.

The Committee directs APHIS to continue a $500,000 project to

develop a reproductive inhibitor for Canadian geese at the National

Wildlife Research Center.

Imported Fire Ant.—The Committee supports a program for the

control, management, and eradication of the imported fire ant and

provides $2,118,000 for this program, of which $45,000 is for New

Mexico.

Berryman Institute.—The Committee directs the Department to

continue the current funding level for the Jack Berryman Institute

in Utah.

Avocados.—The Committee urges APHIS to continue working

closely with U.S. avocado growers in implementing procedures for

the importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs

APHIS to report on the status of Mexican avocado imports, includVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.002 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
48

ing any problems in pest surveys, and oversight by APHIS personnel, including the diversion of Mexican avocados to other than

approved destinations. The Committee also directs APHIS to report

to Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the approved

areas or lengthening time periods for importation of Mexican avocados. In addition, the Committee is concerned that USDA’s rulemaking, which did not include an advanced notice of public rulemaking, has not been adequately open for comment by domestic

and international growers, and that USDA should allow additional

comment on the science supporting such expansion of states or extension of shipping season for avocados imported from Mexico.

Export Certification User Fees.—The Committee is aware of user

fees associated with the certification of exports of livestock and

livestock semen and embryos. The Committee is concerned about

user fees that are established at such a level that they maintain

full cost recovery and do not prohibit the export of livestock, livestock semen and embryos and make these products non-competitive

in the international marketplace. This Committee instructs USDA

to review the current user fee structure and to report back to this

Committee on this structure and how this structure was established. This review should include a summary of the fees that are

charged to exporters for the various services and delineate how

USDA arrived at such fee. It is the intent of the Committee that

user fees should recover the full cost of these services provided by

USDA. USDA should consider the impact of the user fee upon exporting entities and ensure that user fees recover the cost incurred,

but do not limit the international marketing opportunities for livestock, livestock semen and embryos.

Control of brucellosis in wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone

Area.—The Committee urges APHIS and ARS to work cooperatively and expeditiously with the National Park Service, the U.S.

Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service to begin implementation of a vaccination program for bison in FY 2002 and to report

back to Congress annually on the dollar amounts expended, the nature of the work funded, and the progress and results of these efforts.

Import Inspection Activities.—The Committee is concerned that

resources of the Department of Agriculture are being used to finance the expenses of activities not of primary benefit to American

agriculture. For example, APHIS expends valuable resources inspecting wood packing materials that are used for imported manufactured goods so as to guard against invasive species. While these

inspection activities are vital, their cost should be borne by the importer of the goods. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report prior to the fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the nature and volume of inspected imported materials, to what extent

those items are imported primarily for agricultural or non-agricultural use, what the costs are for inspecting and treating items related to non-agricultural use, and what level of fees could properly

be assessed in order to have the importer pay the cost of any inspection or treatment.

Bird hazards/public safety.—The Committee is aware that the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and USDA have previously

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to develop a cooperVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.002 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
49

ative approach to resolving bird hazards to civilian aviation in the

furtherance of public safety. In addition, FAA statistics show that

Florida now experiences more bird strikes to aircraft than any

other state. The Committee is concerned about this situation and

strongly encourages the agency to examine the feasibility of providing two additional wildlife biologists and associated resources in

Florida, as well as initiating new methods and development activities in Florida to strengthen the response to this increasing wildlife

hazard.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,848,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,189,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,189,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,659,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,000,000

The APHIS Buildings and Facilities account funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $7,189,000,

a decrease of $2,659,000 below the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request.

The following table summarizes the committee’s provisions:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

enacted

FY 2002

request

Committee

provisions

Buildings and Facilities:

Plum Island, NY ......................................................................................................... $3,193 $3,193 $3,193

Quarantine and seed facilities, AK ........................................................................... $4,659 0 0

Miami Animal Import Center, FL ............................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000

Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and preventative maintenance 1,996 1,996 1,996

Total, Buildings & Facilities ................................................................................. 9,848 5,189 7,189

Miami International Airport Facility.—The Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for buildings and facilities to cover

costs associated with the new ‘‘one-stop’’ facility to be built at

Miami International Airport that will house the Plant Protection

and Quarantine Air Cargo Operations, the Plant Inspection Station, the Canine Operations Kennel Units, and a 100 stall animal

import/export center.

50

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $65,191,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 71,430,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 71,774,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,583,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +344,000

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by

the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the authority

of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities.

Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory programs, AMS

aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing and effective distribution and transportation of products from the Nation’s farms.

Programs administered by this agency include market news activities, payments to states for marketing activities, the Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg

surveillance services, transportation services, and market protection and promotion.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $71,774,000, an increase of $6,583,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $344,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided $14,259,000 for the Pesticide Data Program, and $5,900,000 for the Mandatory Price Reporting Program, the same as the budget request.

The Committee is aware of the strong concerns that have been

raised about the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Microbiological

Data Program. In particular, questions have been raised regarding

barriers that could disrupt or impede its useful and effective implementation. The Committee further understands that concerns have

been raised about the effort by the Department to utilize a stakeholder process, which can review the program in terms of its goals,

objectives, and implementation plan. The Committee therefore recommends that the Department hold a public meeting as soon as

possible. The meeting should include consumer and industry

groups to ensure that public concerns surrounding the program can

be considered by USDA.

The Committee is concerned about the problems that USDA has

experienced with the implementation of Mandatory Price Reporting

and the disruptions that these problems have caused participants

in the marketplace. The law requires the Secretary of Agriculture

to establish programs to provide price information for cattle and

hogs that is timely, accurate, and reliable, so as to facilitate more

informed marketing decisions and promote competition in the

slaughtering industry. The price reporting system that the Secretary initiated to meet these requirements has been less timely

and, although now corrected, reported grossly inaccurate information on the boxed beef cutout value. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with interested parties to develop recommendations

51

for obtaining more timely, consistent, meaningful and accurate

data without compromising confidentiality and to provide such recommendations to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of

this Act.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2001 limitation .................................................................................... ($60,596,000)

2002 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,596,000)

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (60,596,000)

Comparison:

2001 limitation ............................................................................ ............................

2002 budget limitation ................................................................ ............................

The Agricultural Marketing Service provides inspection, grading,

and classing services to the cotton and tobacco industries on a user

funded basis. The legislative authorities to carry out these programs are: the U.S. Cotton Standards Act; the Cotton Statistics

and Estimates Act of 1927, as amended; the Tobacco Inspection

Act; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981; the Dairy and

Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1985; and the Uniform Cotton Classing

Fees Act of 1987. These programs facilitate the interstate and foreign commerce of these products. This is accomplished by inspecting, identifying, and certifying the quality of these products in accordance with official standards. Grades serve as a basis for prices

and reflect the value of the products to the producer as well as the

buyer. These programs facilitate the movement of commodities

through marketing channels in a quick, efficient, and equitable

manner.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural

Marketing Service, the Committee provides $60,596,000, the same

as the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the

budget request.

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ ($13,438,000)

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ (13,874,000)

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ (13,995,000)

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... (+557,000)

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... (+121,000)

The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or by increasing their

utilization; and (c) reestablishing the farmers’ purchasing power.

The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets by

purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to encourage continued adequate production.

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years

2000 through 2002:

52

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2000–

2002

FY 2000 actual FY 2001 current

estimate

FY 2002 budget

estimate

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) ..................... $5,735,557,955 $5,738,448,921 $6,139,942,369

Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106–224) ...................... .............................. 200,000,000 ..............................

Less Rescission ................................................................ ¥15,000 .............................. ..............................

Less Transfers:

Food and Nutrition Service .............................................. ¥4,935,199,000 ¥5,127,579,000 ¥5,340,708,000

Commerce Department .................................................... ¥69,920,523 ¥72,827,819 ¥79,125,978

Total, Transfers ........................................................... ¥5,005,119,523 ¥5,200,406,819 ¥5,419,833,978

Budget Authority ....................................................................... 730,423,432 738,042,102 720,108,391

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year ......................... 112,630,114 241,269,707 218,630,609

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations ........................................ 50,355,227 .............................. ..............................

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 ............... .............................. 1,000,000 ..............................

Emergency Surplus Removal .................................. 200,214,947 68,589,200 ..............................

Diversion Payments ................................................. 30,777,658 10,250,000 ..............................

Disaster Relief ........................................................ .............................. .............................. ..............................

Specialty Crop Purchases ....................................... .............................. 200,000,000 ..............................

Estimated Future Purchases ................................... .............................. 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 & 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 PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $13,995,000, an

increase of $557,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $121,000 above the budget request.

Purchase of Irradiated Foods.—Should the USDA purchase foods

that have been treated with ionizing radiation for any of its nutritional programs, the packaging shall be clearly labeled and state

that foods have been irradiated in compliance with current FDA

regulations on labeling for irradiated foods.

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,347,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,347,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,347,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

53

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are made to

state marketing agencies to: identify and test market alternative

farm commodities; determine methods of providing more reliable

market information; and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made possible many types of projects, such

as electronic marketing and agricultural product diversification.

Current projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and seeking new outlets for existing farm

produced commodities. The legislation grants the U.S. Department

of Agriculture authority to establish cooperative agreements with

State Departments of Agriculture or similar state agencies to improve the efficiency of the agricultural marketing chain. The states

perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at

least one-half of the cost of the projects.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $1,347,000, the same amount available for fiscal year 2001, and the same as the budget request.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2001 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... $31,350,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 32,907,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 33,117,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,767,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +210,000 1 Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L. 106–554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act).

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 PROVISIONS

For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,

the Committee provides $33,117,000, an increase of $1,767,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001, and an increase

of $210,000 above the budget request.

54

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2001 limitation .................................................................................... ($42,463,000)

2002 budget limitation ....................................................................... (42,463,000)

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (42,463,000)

Comparison:

2001 limitation ............................................................................ ............................

2002 budget limitation ................................................................ ............................

The U.S. Grain Standards Act requires, with minor exceptions,

that all grain exported by grade must be officially inspected and

weighed. The agency’s employees or delegated state agencies perform original inspection and weighing services at export port locations in the United States and Canada. Grain which is not being

exported may be inspected at interior locations, upon request, by

licensed employees of designated state and private agencies. The

agency’s employees, upon request, perform domestic original inspection and weighing services on grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and

related grain commodities. The agency’s employees supervise and

provide oversight for inspectors performing official services.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request. The bill

includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Appropriations

Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require

additional supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable factors

occur.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $459,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 476,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 481,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +22,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +5,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry,

and egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $481,000, an increase of

$22,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $695,171,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 715,542,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 720,652,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +25,481,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,110,000

55

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.

The major objectives of the Service are to assure that meat and

poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat Inspection

Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide continuous inplant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products

Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen reduction program.

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic plants

preparing meat, poultry, or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare

meat or poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to states which maintain

meat and poultry inspection programs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $720,652,000, an increase of $25,481,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$5,110,000 above the budget request.

The Committee provides the full amount requested for inspection

costs and for activities related to the Codex Alimentarius.

Pathogen-reduction Through Irradiation.—It is the Committee’s

understanding that Food and Drug Administration approval of irradiation processes for meat and poultry also serves as Food Safety

Inspection Service approval, as of the December 23, 1999 Federal

Register notice. The Committee encourages FSIS to work closely

with firms wishing to include such processes in their production,

and to provide any required review in a timely manner.

Laboratory Testing.—The Committee strongly encourages the

agency to consider outsourcing microbiological testing to private

laboratories approved by the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (International Standards Organization) as a method

of increasing budgetary efficiencies, expediting test turn-around

time, and increasing food safety.

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $588,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 606,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 611,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +23,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +5,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

international affairs (except for foreign economic development) and

commodity programs. The Office has oversight and management

responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency (which includes the

56

Commodity Credit Corporation), the Risk Management Agency, and

the Foreign Agricultural Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$611,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for

fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103–354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the Consolidated Farm

Service Agency, the name was changed to the Farm Service Agency

on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC); the warehouse examination function; the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP);

and farm ownership, operating, emergency disaster, and other loan

programs.

Agricultural market transition program.—The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104–127 (1996

Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the opportunity for a onetime signup in a 7-year, production flexibility contract. Depending

on each contract, a participant’s prior contract-crop acreage history

and payment yield, as well as total program participation, each

contract participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,

planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for the

purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, include

wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, and rice.

This program does not include any production adjustment requirements or related provisions except for restrictions on the planting

of fruits and vegetables.

Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, and

other loan and related programs.—The 1996 Act provides for marketing assistance loans to producers of contract commodities, extra

long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for the 1996 through 2002

crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, these nonrecourse loans

are characterized by loan repayment rates that may be determined

to be less than the principal plus accrued interest per unit of the

commodity. Producers have the option of taking a loan deficiency

payment, if available, in lieu of the marketing assistance loan.

The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for the

1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where the

loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature depending

on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar. The 1996

Act provides for a milk price support program, whereby the price

of milk is supported through December 31, 1999, via purchases of

57

butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The rate of support is fixed

each calendar year, starting at $10.35 per hundredweight in 1996

and declining each year to $9.90 per hundredweight in 1999. The

FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106–78, extends the milk price

support program to January 1, 2001. The 1996 Act and the 1938

Act provide for a peanut loan and poundage quota program for the

1996 through 2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act

of 1949, as amended (1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a

price support, quota, and allotment program for tobacco.

The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after October

1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the formula

which was used to calculate commodity loans secured prior to fiscal

year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan interest rate will, in

effect, be one percentage point higher than CCC’s cost-of-money for

that month.

The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in the

Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by changing the

annual $50,000 payment limit per person for deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment limit per person for

contract payments. The annual $75,000 payment limit per person

applicable to combined marketing loan gains and loan deficiency

payments for all commodities that was in effect for the 1991

through 1995 crop years continues through the 2002 crop year.

Similarly, the 3-entity rule is continued.

Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.—Various price

support and related programs have been authorized in numerous

legislative enactments since the early 1930’s. Operations under

these programs are financed through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency (FSA)

are utilized in the administration of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the FSA is also Executive Vice

President of the Corporation.

The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address high

priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. The

Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of the

programs financed through the CCC.

Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.—Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and facilities to

implement the programs. Appropriations for these programs are

transferred or paid to the Corporation for its costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as Public Law 480.

Farm credit programs.—The Department’s reorganization has

placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate improved

coordination between the credit programs and FSA’s risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs. FSA reviews

applications, makes and collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund

(ACIF) loans are appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and

transferred to FSA salaries and expenses.

58

Risk management.—Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection for

growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not available.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Transfer from

program accts. Total, FSA, S&E

2001 appropriation 1 ....... $826,563,000 ($266,132,000) ($1,092,695,000)

2002 budget estimate ..... 939,030,000 (274,357,000) (1,213,387,000)

Provided in the bill ......... 945,993,000 (276,546,000) (1,222,539,000)

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .. +119,430,000 (+10,414,000) (+129,844,000)

2002 budget estimate ...................... +6,963,000 (+2,189,000) (+9,152,000) 1 Excludes $50 million in supplemental funds provided by P.L. 106–387

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA),

the Committee provides an appropriation of $945,993,000 and

transfers from other accounts of $276,546,000, for a total program

level of $1,222,539,000. This is an increase of $129,844,000 above

the amount available for fiscal year 2001 (excluding supplementals)

and an increase of $9,152,000 above the budget request.

County Offices.—The Committee is concerned about any Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when the FSA

office network is essential to helping farmers address critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee reiterates its

strong view that no county office closure or consolidation should

occur except in those locations for which closures and relocations

are supported by rigorous analysis to ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available to the public will not be reduced.

Location of Commodity Sales to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).—The Committee continues last year’s directive to the

Department to increase its outreach to producers and grain traders

so as to increase the pool of CCC-eligible vendors for any commodity sale. In particular, the Committee expects the Department

to make special efforts in Ohio and other Great Lakes States to increase sales and shipments from these areas.

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $2,993,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2,993,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 2,993,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

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

59

FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the

state’s agricultural mediation program.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $2,993,000, the same as the amount available in fiscal

year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $450,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 100,000

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

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥350,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who,

through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market

due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $100,000, a decrease of $350,000 below the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget

request.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Farm Ownership Loans.—Makes loans to farmers and ranchers

for acquiring, enlarging, or improving farms, including farm buildings, land development, use, and conservation, refinancing indebtedness, and for loan closing costs.

Operating Loans.—Makes loans to farmers and ranchers for costs

incident to reorganizing a farming system for more profitable operations, for a variety of essential farm operating expenses such as

purchase of livestock, farm equipment, feed, seed, fertilizer, and

farm supplies; for refinancing land and water development, use,

and conservation; for refinancing indebtedness; for other farm and

home needs; and for loan closing costs.

Emergency Loans.—Makes loans in designated areas where a

natural disaster has caused a general need for agricultural credit

which cannot be met for limited periods of time by private cooperatives or other responsible sources.

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Makes loans to any Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act,

which does not have adequate uncommitted funds, to acquire lands

or interest in lands within the tribe’s reservation or Alaskan Indian

community, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use

of the tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.

60

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Makes loans in conjunction

with the sale of security properties previously acquired during the

servicing of its loan portfolio.

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Makes loans to assist foundations in financing the operation of boll weevil eradication programs

provided to farmers.

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2001 loan level ....................................................................................... $3,090,216,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 3,855,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 3,855,000,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ................................................................................ +764,784,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm ownership, farm operating, and emergency. In addition, the fund makes

loans to associations for Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for fiscal

year 2002 for the agricultural credit insurance fund programs are:

$1,128,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which $128,000,000 is

for direct loans and $1,000,000,000 for guaranteed loans;

$2,600,000,000 for farm operating loans, of which $600,000,000 is

for direct loans, $500,000,000 is for guaranteed subsidized loans,

and $1,500,000,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans;

$2,000,000 for Indian tribe land acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for

emergency disaster loans; and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

level

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Farm loan programs:

Farm ownership:

Direct .................................................................................................. $127,722 $128,000 $128,000

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... 868,086 1,000,000 1,000,000

Farm operating:

Direct .................................................................................................. 522,891 600,000 600,000

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................................. 1,075,468 1,500,000 1,500,000

Subsidized guaranteed ...................................................................... 369,100 500,000 500,000

Emergency disaster ..................................................................................... 24,947 25,000 25,000

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................................................... 2,002 2,000 2,000

Boll Weevil Eradication ............................................................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000

Total, farm loans ........................................................................... 3,090,216 3,855,000 3,855,000

61

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative expenses

2001 appropriation .................... $67,449,000 $49,284,000 $268,861,000

2002 budget estimate ............... 60,427,000 124,950,000 280,595,000

Provided in the bill ................... 60,427,000 124,950,000 282,769,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ............ ¥7,022,000 +75,666,000 +13,908,000

2002 budget estimate ........ .......................... .......................... +2,174,000

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.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under

credit reform:

FY 2001

estimate

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership:

Direct ...................................................................................... $13,756,000 $3,366,000 $3,366,000

Guaranteed ............................................................................. 4,427,000 4,500,000 4,500,000

Subtotal ............................................................................. 18,183,000 7,866,000 7,866,000

Farm operating:

Direct ...................................................................................... 47,251,000 53,580,000 53,580,000

Guaranteed unsubsidized ...................................................... 14,738,000 52,650,000 52,650,000

Guaranteed subsidized .......................................................... 30,119,000 67,800,000 67,800,000

Subtotal ............................................................................. 92,108,000 174,030,000 174,030,000

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................... 322,000 118,000 118,000

Emergency disaster ......................................................................... 6,120,000 3,363,000 3,363,000

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................. 116,733,000 185,377,000 185,377,000

ACIF expenses:

Salaries and expenses ............................................................... 264,731,000 272,595,000 274,769,000

Administrative expenses ............................................................. 4,130,000 8,000,000 8,000,000

Total, ACIF expenses .............................................................. 268,861,000 280,595,000 282,769,000

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $65,453,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 74,752,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 75,142,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +9,689,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +390,000

Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR)

Act of 1996, Risk Management became an agency of the Department of Agriculture, known as the Risk Management Agency

(RMA), reporting to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

62

RMA manages program activities in support of the Federal crop

insurance program as authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance

Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994

and the FAIR Act of 1996. Functional areas of RMA are research

and development, insurance services, and compliance whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. Reviews and evaluations are conducted for overall performance to ensure the actuarial soundness of the insurance program.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an appropriation of $75,142,000, an increase of $9,689,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $390,000

above the budget request.

CORPORATIONS

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $2,804,660,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 1 3,037,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 1 3,037,000,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +232,340,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

1 Current indefinite appropriation.

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace the

combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.

Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a basic level

of protection against catastrophic losses, which cover 50 percent of

the normal yield at 55 percent of the expected price. The only cost

to the producer is an administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy,

or $200 for all crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap

of $600 regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At

least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers who

participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain

other farm programs. This coverage was available either through

FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility for emergency

crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT coverage required to

meet program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not

include emergency loans or payment under the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered by FSA. Beginning

with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began phasing out delivery of

CAT coverage through the FSA offices, except in those areas where

there are insufficient private insurance providers. The private companies serve as the sole source for CAT coverage.

The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies for additional ‘‘buy-up’’ coverage levels which producers may obtain from

private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy is equivalent

to the amount of premium established for catastrophic risk protecVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.003 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
63

tion coverage and an amount for operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the

price, the amount is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium

established for 50 percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent

of the expected market price and an amount of operating and administrative expenses.

The reform legislation included the NAP program for producers

of crops for which there is currently no insurance available. NAP

was established to ensure that most producers of crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop catastrophes comparable

to protection previously provided by ad hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was established as part of the Risk

Management Agency, under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.

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 of over $8.2 billion in five years to further improve Federal crop insurance.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary

(estimated to be $3,037,000,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2002

Budget Request), an increase of $232,340,000 above the amount

provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under the

laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United States,

and was managed and operated in close affiliation with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was transferred

to the Department of Agriculture by the President’s Reorganization

Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established as an agency and

instrumentality of the United States under a permanent Federal

charter by Public Law 80–806, as amended. Its operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other specific legislation.

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling,

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities;

64

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation also makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of

such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing

of costs with producers for the establishment of approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent

rental payments for such land for the duration of conservation reserve program contracts.

Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, as

amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996, P.L. 104–127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and the Food Security

Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).

The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be offered for

the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed grains, upland cotton,

and rice); nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse

loan program for sugar. The 1996 Act also requires a milk price

support program that begins after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31, 1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product processors. The FY 2000 Appropriations

Act, P.L. 106–78 extends the milk price support program through

January, 2001.

The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation acreage

reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve program (WRP), and

the environmental quality incentives program (EQIP). Each of

these programs is funded through the Corporation.

The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded conservation programs, including the conservation farm option; flood

risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives, and farmland

protection programs.

The Corporation is managed by a board of directors appointed by

the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject to the general

supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, who is ex

officio, a director, and chairman of the board. The board consists

of six members, in addition to the Secretary, who are designated

according to their positions in the Department of Agriculture.

Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA state

and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used to carry

out Corporation activities.

The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 million

held by the United States and authority to borrow up to $30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal Treasury and may also

be borrowed from private lending agencies.

The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity Credit

Corporation are as follows:

In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its annual

budget programs submitted to and approved by the Congress purVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.003 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
65

suant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is authorized to use

its general powers only to—

(a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities through

loans, purchases, payments, and other operations.

(b) Make available materials and facilities required in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural commodities.

(c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to other government agencies, foreign governments, and domestic, foreign or

international relief or rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic requirements.

(d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.

(e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic

markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new

and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such

commodities.

(f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the development

of foreign markets for agricultural commodities.

(g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs authorized by law.

(h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress may

specifically authorize or provide.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

2001 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $25,264,441,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 23,116,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 23,116,000,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .......................................................... ¥2,148,441,000

2002 budget estimate ...................................................... ........................................

1 Current indefinite appropriation.

If necessary to perform the functions, duties, obligations, or commitments of the Commodity Credit Corporation, administrative

personnel and others serving the Corporation shall be paid from

funds on hand or from those funds received from the redemption

or sale of commodities. Such funds shall also be available to meet

program payments, commodity loans, or other obligations of the

Corporation.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but not

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $23,116,000,000 in the

President’s fiscal year 2002 Budget Request), a decrease of

$2,148,441,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and

the same as the budget request.

The Committee does not recommend language as requested that

would give the Corporation the flexibility to receive reimbursement

of actual realized losses incurred to date during the current fiscal

year, in addition to the most recent actual fiscal year.

66

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT

2001 limitation ........................................................................ $5,000,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................. 5,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 5,000,000

Comparison:

2001 limitation ................................................................ ........................................

2002 budget estimate ...................................................... ........................................

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s (CCC) hazardous waste

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.

Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management

of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA’s hazardous waste

management appropriation. CCC funds operations and maintenance costs only.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste

Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000,

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same

as the budget request.

(67)

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $709,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 730,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 736,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +27,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +6,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out the

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural resources and

the environment. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

the Forest Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$736,000, an increase of $27,000 above the amount available for

fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget request.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is the lead

Federal conservation agency for private land. SCS was established

in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil and water conservation on the Nation’s private and non-Federal land. NRCS was

established by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of

1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The agency combines the authorities of the

former SCS and directs financial or technical assistance programs

for natural resource conservation.

NRCS provides America’s private land conservation through local

conservation districts to individuals, communities, watershed

groups, tribal governments, Federal, state, and local agencies, and

others. The NRCS staff at the local level work with state and local

conservation staff and volunteers in a partnership to assist individuals and communities to care for natural resources. NRCS also develops technical guidance for conservation planning and assistance.

This technical guidance is tailored to local conditions and is widely

used by NRCS staff and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to ensure that conservation is based on sound science.

The benefits of these activities are multifaceted, including sustained and improved agricultural productivity; cleaner, safer, and

more dependable water supplies; reduced damages caused by floods

and other natural disasters; and an enhanced natural resource

68

base to support continued economic development, recreation, and

the environment.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $712,545,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 773,454,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 782,762,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +70,217,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +9,308,000

The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain agricultural

productivity and protect and enhance the natural resource base.

This is done through providing America’s private land conservation

to land users, communities, units of state and local government,

and other Federal agencies in planning and implementing natural

resources solutions to reduce erosion, improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and conserve wetlands, enhance fish and

wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range

conditions, reduce upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL),

wetlands (swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and

conservation reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food

Security Act, as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,

and Trade Act of 1990, the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, and

the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $782,762,000, an increase of $70,217,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $9,308,000

above the budget request.

Pay cost.—The Committee has included $24,417,000 for fiscal

year 2002 pay costs.

State funding allocations.—The Committee is concerned that

funding allocations to the States are being reduced in proportion to

Congressional earmarks funded in the Conservation Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the NRCS, in making

the fiscal year 2002 Conservation Operations funding allocations to

the States, to treat Congressional earmarks as additions to the

States’ funding allocation. The Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations, not later than

45 days after the enactment of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2001 Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal

year 2002 Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal

year 2002 Congressional earmarks by State, and the total conservation operations allocation by State.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.—The Committee includes

legislative language that provides $20,000,000 for the Grazing

Lands Conservation Initiative, an increase of $2,000,000 above the

current funding level.

Assistance to livestock producers.—The Committee urges NRCS

to target assistance to assist livestock producers comply with the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for ConVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.003 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
69

centrated Feeding Operations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Small and mid-sized producers are facing extreme financial hardships that will possibly result in the closure of operations throughout the country.

National Water Management Center.—The Committee encourages

the NRCS to provide adequate funding to the National Water Management Center in Lonoke, AR.

Project continuations.—The Committee has provided funding for the following as project continuations: $290,000 for cooperative efforts with Delaware State University; $725,000 for the Great Lakes

Basin Program; $500,000 to promote pastureland management and

rotational grazing in Central New York; $100,000 for the Trees

Forever Program in Illinois; $1,500,000 for a program to improve

telecommunications capabilities in remote areas of New Mexico

serving mostly minority or disadvantaged populations; $250,000 to

design and implement natural stream restoration initiatives in the

Mid-Atlantic Highlands of which $125,000 shall be for the Canaan

Valley Institute and $125,000 for the NRCS office in Morgantown,

West Virginia; $200,000 for the soil survey geographic database to

conduct digitized soil surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands in conjunction with the Canaan Valley Institute; $125,000 for a pilot

AFO/CAFO project in Utah in cooperation with the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah Cattlemen Association, and the Utah Dairymen Association; $250,000 to establish best management practices to individual farmers to reduce the impact of agriculture-related nonpoint sources of pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New

York watersheds; $250,000 to address agriculture non-point source

pollution in the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $100,000 for the Trees

Forever Program in Iowa; and $5,000,000 for the continued implementation and acceleration of pilot projects for innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 percent reduction in nutrients of

wastewater discharged by animal feeding operations and associated

animal processing facilities implemented by the not-for-profit Agriculture Facilities Administration & Management Corporation

(‘‘AFAM’’), and entities such as the North Carolina Agricultural Finance Authority contracted by AFAM to assist in selecting, funding, implementing and evaluating innovative technology systems

through pilot projects.

New projects and/or continuations/increases.—The Committee

has included funding for the following continued projects with increases or new projects: $600,000 for innovative, collaborative approaches to protecting the resources of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary, an increase of $100,000; $150,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture to expand the

Wisconsin grazing lands initiative to augment the funding that this

initiative is receiving through the environmental quality incentives

program; $150,000 for the digitization and certification of all published soil surveys for Puerto Rico to be made available through the

Internet; $500,000 to the State of Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee for the Sand Mountain Water Quality Conservation Project; an additional $575,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

for a total of $1,000,000; $350,000 for technical assistance to the

Westchester Soil and Conservation District to address land use and

70

water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound, an increase

of $50,000; $650,000 for technical assistance to implement the second phase of a multi-year agreement between NRCS and the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) in Walton, NY, of which

$80,000 should be designated for perpetual stewardship funding for

easements purchased by the WAC’s Whole Farm Easement Program; $300,000 for technical assistance to the Lake Tahoe Basin

Soil Conservation Project, an increase of $50,000; $125,000 for an

agriculture enhancement/open space plan in CA; $1,000,000 for a

cooperative agreement with the Manatee (FL) Agriculture Water

Reuse System project; $300,000 for the Beaver Swamp Brook

project in New York; $600,000 for the refinement, integration, and

implementation of computer tools to improve nutrient management

planning on dairy farms in New York; $50,000 for the evaluation

of dairy cattle manure as a biofuel in North Carolina; $1,000,000

for the Maumee Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Plan in northwest Ohio; $500,000 to facilitate water conservation and efficient irrigation activities in the Bexar, Medina, Uvalde

Counties (TX) area of the Edwards Aquifer; $1,500,000 for a field

office telecommunications pilot program in West Texas; $2,000,000

for a cooperative agreement with the Global Environment Management Education Center land use program at Stevens Point, WI;

and $600,000 for a watershed management demonstration program.

Embrass River/Shad Lake.—The Committee encourages the

NRCS to provide technical assistance for the Embrass River Watershed and Shad Lake in Illinois.

Illinois River Basin.—The Committee directs the NRCS to use up to $600,000 in EQIP funds for conservation measures in the Illinois

River Basin.

Urban encroachment.—The Committee recognizes the major difficulties created by the encroachment of urban areas on rural

areas. The Committee believes that there is a need to develop a

more comprehensive and integrated view of transportation, land

use by commercial, residential, agricultural, and public entities.

The Committee directs the Service to develop a proposal for such

a comprehensive view, including consultation with entities such as

the American Farmland Trust and the Nature Conservancy. In the

development of this proposal, the Committee expects the Service to

identify pilot projects for this activity, including highway development in northwest Ohio.

Conservation Reserve Program.—The Committee has included

$39,000,000 for technical assistance for the conservation reserve

program, of which $8,500,000 shall be derived from CCC section 11

reimbursements.

Watershed Management and Demonstration.—The Committee

has provided funding for a cooperative agreement with the Texas

Institute of Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) for watershed management and demonstration projects coordinated jointly

by the National Pork Producers Council, Iowa Soybean Association

and TIAER. The projects will utilize water quality research, demonstrating a voluntary and incentive driven certification program

that will help row crop and livestock agricultural producers comply

with national environmental water quality regulations. The ComVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.003 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
71

mittee encourages NRCS to work with these groups to identify additional federal resources available for the demonstration program

and provide necessary technical assistance.

Water quality/Upper White River Basin, MO.—The Committee

directs the NRCS to study the establishment of a water quality office serving the Upper White River Basin in Missouri. The Committee directs the Service to report on the five-year cost, and the

level of financial and human resources that would be required to

establish such an office. The Committee directs the Service to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations by March 1, 2002

on this issue.

Source Water Protection Initiative.—NRCS is strongly encouraged

to provide support and assistance to the local watershed associations in Ohio, Indiana and Missouri working on the Source Water

Protection Initiative.

Weed It Now.—The Committee directs the NRCS to fund the Nature Conservancy’s Weed It Now (WIN) initiative in the Southern

Taconic Mountains of Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut.

Forest Health.—In light of severe damage to forest health from

the pine beetle infestation in Tennessee, the Committee recognizes

the need for reforestation activities as a result of this devastating

outbreak and strongly encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to

work with Tennessee’s state forester to mitigate this emergency.

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,844,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,960,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,030,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +186,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +70,000

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law

83–566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of the

Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001–1008), and section 6 of

the Act provided for the establishment of the River Basin Surveys

and Investigations Program (16 U.S.C. 1006–1009). A separate 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 of coordination of this

development with downstream and other phases of water development.

Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation between

the Federal government and the states and their political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. Watershed plans form

the basis for installing works of improvement of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and reduction of sedimentation in the watershed of rivers and streams and to further the conservation, develVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.003 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
72

opment, utilization, and disposal of water. Watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations to develop their watershed

work plan by making investigations and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water management, and sedimentation

problems in a watershed and works of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also include estimated benefits and

costs, cost sharing and operating and maintenance arrangements,

and other appropriate information necessary to justify Federal assistance for carrying out the plan.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $11,030,000, an increase of $186,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $70,000

above the budget request.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2001 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... $99,224,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,413,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 105,743,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,519,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,330,000

1 Excludes $110 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided in P.L. 106–387

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law

566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001–1005, 1007–1009),

provides for cooperation among the Federal government, the states,

and local political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion,

floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and

streams, and to further the conservation, development, utilization,

and disposal of water.

The work of the Department under this item includes financial

assistance for the installation of works of improvement specified in

approved watershed work plans including structural measures,

land treatment measures, and program evaluation studies in selected watershed projects to determine the effectiveness of structural and land treatment measures installed. In addition, NRCS

makes loans to local organizations to finance the local share of the

costs of installing planned works of improvement.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $105,743,000, an increase of

$6,519,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $5,330,000 above the budget request. Language is included which limits the amount spent on technical assistance to not

more than $45,514,000.

The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue on

the following projects: the four pilot projects in North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; Glen Shoals Lake in Illinois; Little Red River and the Big Slough Watersheds in Arkansas;

73

Soap Creek Watershed in Iowa; and the Chino Dairy Preserve, San

Bernardino, California.

The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide technical and financial assistance to the following projects: Wet Walnut Creek Watershed in Kansas; Truth or Consequences/Williamsburg Arroyos

Watershed in New Mexico; Caney Creek project in Grayson County, KY; the Swan Porter (NC) Project; Bayou Bourbeux Watershed

Project in Opelousas, LA; to address flooding problems in Lavaca,

AR; and Town Creek in Carthage, MS.

Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed.—The Committee directs the

NRCS to fund the Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed project in

Texas at the future obligation request level proposed by the TexasNRCS.

DuPage County, IL.—The Committee includes funds for DuPage

County, Illinois for financial and technical assistance at the same

level provided in fiscal year 2001.

Beardsley Wash Watershed.—The Committee urges the NRCS to

complete the Beardsley Wash Watershed Project in Ventura County, CA.

Snake River Project.—The Committee urges the NRCS to complete the Snake River Project in Warren, MN.

Oven Run Project.—The Committee urges the NRCS to complete

the sixth and final site on the Oven Run (PA) project.

Devils Lake.—The Committee is aware of continued flooding in

the Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has

risen 25 feet over the last several years. The Committee encourages, the NRCS in cooperation with the FSA to assist in the locally

coordinated flood response and water management activities being

developed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

NRCS and FSA utilize conservation programs in providing water

holding and storage areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in watershed management.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,923,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 43,048,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 48,361,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,438,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,313,000

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.

74

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $48,361,000, an increase of $6,438,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$5,313,000 above the budget request.

The Committee notes that in addition to the 25 new RC&D councils that were funded in fiscal year 2001, an additional 8 councils

were funded from the Fund for Rural America. The annual cost for

these eight councils is approximately $1,000,000. The Committee

has included funds to maintain funding for these eight councils. In

addition, the Committee has included $1,438,000 to cover the fiscal

year 2002 pay cost. The Committee directs that $3,000,000 be used

to fund the backlog of 27 pending applications for new councils,

and $1,000,000 be used to increase the per council allocation closer

to the $161,000 level recommended by the USDA.

FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $6,311,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ .........................

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ .........................

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥6,311,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–313), as

amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its purpose is to encourage the

development, management, and protection of nonindustrial private

forest lands. The program will be carried out by providing technical

assistance and long-term cost sharing agreements with private

landowners.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee concurs with the President’s budget and does not

provide funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. This program

promotes timber production on private lands, and in support of the

budget these efforts will be continued through the State and Private Forestry program in the Forest Service.

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

The Committee has included a rescission of Agricultural Conservation Program funds that were made available under Public

Law 104–37. This program was terminated at the beginning of

1997 in accordance with the 1996 Farm Bill. The USDA has indicated that there are no plans to obligate any of these funds.

(75)

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced

those agencies with the Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service and placed them

under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.

These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of

state, district, and county offices.

In the 1930’s and 1940’s these agencies were primarily involved

in making small loans to farmers; however, today these agencies

have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout all America

providing loan and grant assistance for single family, multi-family,

housing, and special housing needs, as well as a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business development programs.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $604,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 623,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 628,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +24,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +5,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted

by the Congress with respect to the Department’s rural economic

and community development activities. The Office has oversight

and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service,

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the

Committee provides an appropriation of $628,000, an increase of

$24,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

The Committee expects the Department to give consideration to

the following organizations or projects requesting assistance under

the Rural Community Advancement Program and other rural development programs only when such applications are judged to be

meritorious when subject to established review procedures: funds to

Taylor County, FL to expand water service into unincorporated

areas and for a wastewater treatment plant; funds for a water

treatment facility for the City of Toloun, IL; assistance for a new

water well for the Village of Granville, IL; funds for a wastewater

system for the City of Armington, IL; VAW water service for

Bankhead Forest, Lawrence County, AL; grant to Marion County,

76

AL for Agri-Civic Center; grant for community development for the

City of Port Allen, LA; water/wastewater improvements for Livingston Parish, LA; Ascension Parish (LA) for water/wastewater improvements; community development and infrastructure for

Iberville Parish, LA; community development for Clinton, LA; historic building repair for St. Helena Parish, LA; assistance to Craig,

Floyd, and Grayson Counties, VA for Industrial Shell Buildings; assistance to develop business incubators in Buchanan County and

for the Virginia Highlands incubator; assistance for the Southwest

Regional Enterprise Center, VA; assistance to the Dickinson County, VA kitchen incubator; Oklahoma Center for Rural Development

at Northeastern State University; grant to Buck Spring 4–H Center in Warren County, NC; Cross Plains, TN for a new sewer system; assistance for a Rural Development Center at Louisiana Tech

University; assistance for a public safety communication system in

Curry County, OR; grant to the City of Washington, PA Recreation

and Community Economic Development Center; assistance to the

Lawrence County, PA Fair board for a 4–H barn; grant to the City

of Falfurrais, TX for street storm drain and sewer repair; assistance for water/sewer/roads at Dunn Richman Research Park, IL; a

grant to the City of Jasper, FL to expand water and sewer systems;

new water system for Brookport, IL; rescheduling or forgiveness for

rural development loans issued to the Green County, KY Sanitation District #1; assistance to expand the Western Kentucky Growers Cooperative; funds for the Southern Plains Conference Center

in Woodward, OK; assistance to the City of Chatahoochee (FL) to

upgrade wastewater treatment plant; funds for a community facility for the City of Greensburg, PA; the Vandalia (WV) Heritage

Foundations Program for Revitalization through community development; funds to construct livestock barns, a vocational agriculture

complex, and exhibit hall at the Antalope Valley (CA) Fairgrounds;

funds to construct an equestrian center at the Erie County Fairgrounds in Hamburg, New York; rural development through the

internet in MS; assistance to construct a wastewater treatment facility to serve Oxnard, CA and the Port Hueneme (CA) Water

Agency; funds for a wastewater treatment facility for the City of

Negaunee, MI; grant to Lamar County, AL for safe water; funds for

a rural event center business development project, Rio Arriba

County, (NM); funds to construct the second phase of the Paseo del

Canon Drainage Channel in Taos, NM; assistance to improve the

Alcalde (NM) water system; grant to the Town of Spinger, NM to

improve wastewater treatment; funds for a water pipeline in San

Jon, NM; assistance to the City of Greenville (FL) for water system

improvements; funds for a wastewater treatment plant in Questa,

NM; funds to assist with the development of the Purdue Regional

Technology Center (IN); grant to Klamath and Lake Counties (OR)

for the development of a geothermal—agricultural industrial park;

assistance to Rural Enterprises Inc. for development, marketing,

implementation of a rural infrastructure tax-exempt loan pool

through a bond issue in Durant, OK; assistance to Wakulla County

(FL) to expand water/wastewater; a rural business enterprise grant

for a value-added export center at Arkansas State University; a

rural business opportunity grant for a cheese processing facility in

Washington County, VA; a rural business opportunity grant to the

77

West Central (OH) Port Authority; grant for improvements to St.

James Parish and St. John (LA) Parish water/wastewater systems;

assistance to the Kiski Basin Initiative Economic Action Program

(PA); assistance for the development and construction of the Agribusiness Center in Statesboro, GA; assistance to Gadsden County

(FL) Agriculture Center expansion; grant to the City of Lee (FL) for

wastewater treatment improvements; funds for water/wastewater

improvement in Madison County, FL; a grant to the Suwannee

River (FL) Water Management District to build new sewer lines

into the system; funds to assist in the development of ‘‘The Chavez

Center’’ in Keene, CA; funds for wastewater treatment systems in

Goldsboro, Henderson, Marydel, Templeville, Carpenter’s Point,

Willards, and Cecilton (MD); assistance for slaughterhouse/processing modernization in Vermont; a grant to establish a molded

strawboard manufacturing plant in northwest Ohio; assistance to

help fund a Mobile Asthma Care Program at Valley Children’s Hospital (CA); funds to establish a Pediatric Nursing Internship Program at Valley Children’s Hospital (CA); financial assistance for

design work on the Commonwealth Agri-Energy Ethanol Production Plant (KY); assistance to Jefferson County (MS) for water and

sewer facilities; Phase III of the Regional Waste water collection

system Homosassa (FL); funds for neighborhood revitalization program for Alachua County, FL; financial assistance to the Indian

Waters Central Sewer Project, Citrus County, FL; consideration for

funds to St. Tammany Parish, Washington Parish and Tangipahoa

Parish (LA) to expand water service into unincorporated areas, and

provide wastewater improvements to existing facilities; funds for

Village of Deposit (NY) for municipal water system upgrades;

South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency for surface and ground water improvements in

the Lake Tahoe Basin; grant to upgrade and repair the municipal

sewer system in the Village of Saugerties, New York; and water

system improvements in Aberdeen, ID. The Committee has included $200,000 to fund the completion of

a study underway by the National Ground Water Association.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

FY 2001 estimate FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Appropriations .................... $130,084,000 $133,722,000 $134,733,000

Transfer from:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ........... 408,333,000 419,741,000 422,910,000

Rural Electrification

and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ........... 34,640,000 35,604,000 36,322,000

Rural Telephone Bank

Program Account ...... 2,993,000 0 3,107,000

Rural Telephone Bank

Liquidating Account 0 3,082,000 0

Rural Development

Loan Fund Program

Account ..................... 3,632,000 3,733,000 3,761,000

Total, RD Salaries

and Expenses ........ 579,682,000 595,882,000 600,833,000

78

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service and the

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other

Federal programs to people in rural areas.

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $134,733,000,

an increase of $4,649,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and an increase of $1,011,000 above the budget request.

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ 1$760,864,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 692,125,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 767,465,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +6,601,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +75,340,000

1 Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L. 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 will provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

With the exception of the 10 percent in the ‘‘National office reserve’’ account, funding will be allocated to rural development State

directors for their priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State

directors are authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the

amount in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal

year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for the

State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to

be reallocated nationwide.

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development

Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural community facilities.

Loans are made to organizations, including certain Indian tribes

and corporations not operated for profit and public and quasipublic

agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services to rural residents.

Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall comVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.004 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
79

munity development such as fire and rescue services, health care,

transportation, traffic control, and community, social, cultural, and

recreational benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily

serve rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages

of not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the majority

of available funds.

The Community Facility Grant program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law

104–127), would be used in conjunction with the existing direct and

guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers.

Grants will be targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have lower population and income levels would receive

a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of developing the facility.

The Rural Business and Industry Loans program was created by

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are made to public,

private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain

Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such

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 coVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.004 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
80

ordination, and leadership development; and to establish centers

for training, technology, and trade that will provide training to

rural businesses in the utilization of interactive communications

technologies.

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by several

actions, including sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, 309A, and 310B

of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and

waste development costs. Development loans are made to associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated as public or

quasipublic agencies that propose projects for the development,

storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of domestic water

or the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas.

Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of the development cost of

the projects and can supplement other funds borrowed or furnished

by applicants to pay development costs.

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as

amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit

organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional

governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of

water resources and for improving the planning and management

of solid waste disposal facilities.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations

as compared to the budget request:

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

level

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Housing:

Community facility loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ 0 0 0

Direct ..................................................................................................... $29,161 $13,545 $13,545

Community facility grants ............................................................................. 23,947 18,958 20,958

Subtotal, housing ............................................................................. 53,108 32,503 34,503

Business:

Business and industry loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ $13,354 $27,400 $27,400

Direct ..................................................................................................... 2,904 0 0

Rural business enterprise grants .................................................................. 45,564 40,568 42,568

Rural business opportunity grants ................................................................ 2,993 3,000 4,000

Subtotal, business ............................................................................ 64,815 70,968 73,968

Utilities:

Water and waste disposal loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ 0 0 0

Direct ..................................................................................................... $109,953 $55,664 $55,664

Water and waste disposal grants ................................................................. 529,498 529,490 599,830

Solid waste management grants .................................................................. 3,492 3,500 3,500

81

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM—Continued

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

level

FY 2002

estimate

Committee

provisions

Subtotal, utilities .............................................................................. 642,942 588,654 658,994

Total, loans and grants ................................................................... 1760,864 692,125 767,465

1 Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L. 106–387.

The following earmarks are included in bill language for the Rural Community Advancement Program: $24,000,000 for Federally recognized Native American Tribes, of which $4,000,000 is for

community facilities grants to tribal colleges, and of which

$250,000 is for transportation technical assistance; $6,000,000 for

the Rural Community Development Initiative; $500,000 for rural

transportation technical assistance; $2,000,000 for grants to Mississippi Delta Region counties; $20,000,000 for water and waste

disposal systems in the Colonias; $20,000,000 for water and waste

disposal systems in Alaska; $16,215,000 for technical assistance for

rural water and waste systems; $11,000,000 for a circuit rider program; and $37,624,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities (EZ/EC) and communities designated by the Secretary of

Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, of which

$1,163,000 is for community facilities, of which $27,431,000 shall

be for rural utilities programs, and of which $9,030,000 shall be for

the rural business and cooperative development programs.

Circuit rider program.—The Committee has provided

$11,000,000 for a circuit rider program. The Committee expects

that this will provide sufficient funds for a third circuit rider in

each of the states.

Rural Community Development Initiative.—The Committee has

provided $6,000,000 for the RCDI. The Committee notes that no

fiscal year 2001 funds have been obligated to date for this program.

The Committee directs the USDA to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations by February 1, 2002, on the demand for

this program.

Rural Community Assistance Programs.—The Committee directs

that, of the funds provided for rural waste systems, $7,300,000 is

designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs.

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.—The Committee is concerned that the Department is not properly awarding the full complement of discretionary points to applications for rural development programs submitted by the Sullivan-Wawarsing Rural Economic Area Partnership Zone. The Committee directs the Department to comply with the Memoranda of Agreement signed by the

Secretary on May 10, 1999 establishing the Zone regarding the

award of discretionary points.

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 obVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.004 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
82

taining 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.

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS

2001 loan and grant levels ................................................................ $4,476,160,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,470,648,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,470,648,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ............................................................................. ¥5,512,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

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. Farm labor housing insured

loans are made either to a farm owner or to a public or private

nonprofit organization to provide modest living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor. Loan programs are limited

to rural areas which include towns, villages, and other places of not

more than 10,000 population, which are not part of an urban area.

Loans may also be made in areas with a population in excess of

10,000, but less than 20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing

Insurance Fund program account:

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001 level FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans and Grant:

Single family housing (sec. 502):

Direct ....................................................................... $1,064,651 $1,064,650 $1,064,650

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 3,136,429 3,137,968 3,137,968

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 114,070 114,068 114,068

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 99,780 99,770 99,770

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 32,324 32,324 32,324

83

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001 level FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 11,779 11,778 11,778

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. 5,152 5,090 5,090

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 4,998 5,000 5,000

Modular Housing Demonstration:

Loans ....................................................................... 1,988 0 0

Grants ..................................................................... 4,989 0 0

Total, Loan authorization ............................................ 4,476,160 4,470,648 4,470,648

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy Grants Administrativeexpenses

2001 appropriation .................... $240,190,000 $8,901,000 $4,989,000 $408,333,000

2002 budget estimate .................. 199,800,000 44,087,000 0 419,741,000

Provided in the

bill ..................... 199,800,000 44,087,000 0 422,910,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .................... ¥40,390,000 +35,186,000 ¥4,989,000 +14,577,000

2002 budget estimate ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ +3,169,000

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 reflects the costs of the loan programs under

credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal year 2001

amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as set by the Office of Management and Budget.

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001 level FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan subsidies):

Single family housing (sec. 502):

Direct ....................................................................... $170,983 $140,108 $140,108

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 7,384 40,166 40,166

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 56,202 48,274 48,274

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 1,517 3,921 3,921

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 11,456 10,386 10,386

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 872 750 750

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. 0 28 28

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 278 254 254

Modular Housing Demonstration:

Loans ....................................................................... 399 0 0

Grants ..................................................................... 4,989 0 0

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................. 254,080 243,887 243,887

RHIF expenses:

Administrative expenses .................................................. 408,333 419,741 422,910

84

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $678,504,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 693,504,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 693,504,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +15,000,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established a rural rental assistance program to be administered

through the rural housing loans programs.

The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental

projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, lowincome tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 percent of

monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly income; or (3)

designated housing payments from a welfare agency.

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental

rate established for the unit.

The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing

Service Section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing programs

and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to

existing projects for units occupied by low-income families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts authority to existing contracts; any remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new construction commitments under Sections 514, 515, or

516 for very low-income families with certain limitations.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a

program level of $693,504,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above

the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $33,925,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 33,925,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 33,925,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act

of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs under which

groups of usually six to ten families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors who will work with families in the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help assistance.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $33,925,000, the same as the amount

available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

85

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Grants

2001 appropriation ................................................ $28,460,000 $14,967,000 $14,967,000

2002 budget estimate ........................................... 28,459,000 13,464,000 14,967,000

Provided in the bill ............................................... 28,459,000 13,464,000 17,967,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ....................................... ¥1,000 ¥1,503,000 +3,000,000

2002 budget estimate .................................. ............................ ............................ +3,000,000

The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized under

section 514, and the rural housing for domestic farm labor housing

grant program is authorized under section 516 of the Housing Act

of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and contracts are made to

public and private nonprofit organizations for low-rent housing and

related facilities for domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not

exceed 90 percent of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may

be used for construction of new structures, site acquisition and development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and purchase of

furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining halls, community

rooms and infirmaries.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides a

loan subsidy of $13,464,000 which supports a loan level of

$28,459,000, a decrease of $1,503,000 in loan subsidy and a decrease of $1,000 in loan level below the amount available in fiscal

year 2001 and the same as the budget request. The Committee also

provides an additional $17,967,000 in grants, an increase of

$3,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request. Of the

$17,967,000 in grants, $15,000,000 is for farm labor housing grants

and $2,967,000 is for grants for migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

The Committee notes that the Administration has provided from

the Fund for Rural America an additional $1,500,000 in loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $2,852,000 for farmworker housing for fiscal year 2001. These additional funding levels are not indicated in the previous table.

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $43,903,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 38,914,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 38,914,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥4,989,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The following programs are consolidated under the Rural Housing Assistance Grants: very low-income housing repair grants,

rural housing preservation grants, compensation for construction

defects, and supervisory and technical assistance grants.

The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as

amended. The program makes grants to very low-income families

to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make such

dwellings, safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health of

86

the occupants, their families, or the community. A grant can be

made in combination with a Section 504 very low-income housing

repair loan.

Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair for

low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the preservation

program is to improve the delivery of rehabilitation assistance by

employing the expertise of housing organizations at the local level.

Eligible applicants will compete on a state-by-state basis for grants

funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan writedowns, or grants to finance home repair. The program is administered by local grantees.

Compensation for Construction Defects provides funds for grants

to eligible section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to

pay claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.

The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants are made

to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and

533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The assistance is directed to underserved areas where at least 20 percent or more of

the population is at or below the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the population resides in substandard housing.

Under section 525, grants are made to public and private nonprofit

organizations and other associations for the developing, conducting,

administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal, State, and

local housing programs for low-income families in rural areas.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $38,914,000, a decrease of

$4,989,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 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

87

available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis on

those most in need.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Current economic conditions, together with the rapid changes

taking place throughout the global economy, underscore the need

for policies and programs to strengthen the ability of farmers to

join together in cooperative self-help efforts to improve their income, manage their risk, move more into value-added production

and processing, and capture a larger share of the consumer dollar.

Programs carried out by Cooperative Services within the Rural

Business and Cooperative Service as authorized under the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b)), including

those related to research, education and technical assistance, play

an important role in helping promote such cooperative self-help efforts for the benefit of farmers. Accordingly, the Committee believes such programs should be given a high priority to ensure the

levels of funding and staffing necessary to meet their objectives.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level ....................................................................................... $38,172,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 38,171,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 38,171,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ................................................................................ ¥1,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... ....................

The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program

was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 99–

425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, community development corporations private nonprofit organizations,

public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business,

industry, community facilities, and employment opportunities and

diversification of the economy in rural areas.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the Program

Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in

2002, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the

Committee provides for a loan level of $38,171,000, a decrease of

$1,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same

as the budget request.

The Committee notes that the Administration has provided from

the Fund for Rural America an additional $2,000,000 in loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $7,671,000 for fiscal year 2001.

These additional funding levels are not indicated in the previous

table.

88

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan subsidy Administrative

expenses

2001 appropriation ............................................. $19,433,000 $3,632,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................... 16,494,000 3,733,000

Provided in the bill ............................................. 16,494,000 3,761,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................... ¥2,939,000 +129,000

2002 budget estimates ................................ ............................ +28,000

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level ....................................................................................... $14,969,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 14,966,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 14,966,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ................................................................................ ¥3,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... ...........................

The rural economic development loans program was established

by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L. 100–203), which

amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, by establishing a

new section 313. This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7

U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of credits payment program and

created the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under the Act to utilize funds in this

program to provide zero interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies, start-up costs, and other reasonable expenses for the

purpose of fostering rural economic development.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans program account,

the Committee provides for a loan level of $14,966,000, a decrease

of $3,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and the

same as the budget request.

The Committee notes that the Administration has provided from

the Fund for Rural America an additional $3,000,000 in loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $5,892,000 for fiscal year 2001.

These additional funding levels are not indicated in the previous

table.

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY

Direct loan subsidy

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $3,902,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 1 3,616,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 1 3,616,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥286,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... ........................... 1Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

89

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $6,486,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,486,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,500,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,014,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,014,000

1 Excludes $10 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding provided by P.L. 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.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA)

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are

environmentally friendly and lower production costs.

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to

any qualified State department of agriculture, university, and other

State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance

the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in rural

areas.

Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.

2204(b). The funds are used for Cooperative Research Agreements,

primarily with colleges and universities to address critical operational, organizational and structural issues facing cooperatives.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $7,500,000, an increase of $1,014,000

above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$1,014,000 above the budget request.

Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,500,000 is provided for

a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer

for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. (1)

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... $14,967,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 14,967,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +14,967,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................ 1Funds provided in P.L. 106–377 in fiscal year 2001.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized five new empowerment zones, and 20 new enterprise communities were authorized

by the 1999 Appropriations Act. These 25 designated EZ/ECs make

90

up Round II. The goal of the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative is to revitalize rural communities in a manner

that attracts private sector investment and thereby provides selfsustaining community and economic development. The first three

years of the ten years authorized for Round II EZ/ECs has been

funded through the 1999, 2000, and 2001 Appropriations Acts.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $14,967,000,

an increase of $14,967,000 above the amount available in fiscal

year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

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

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level ....................................................................................... $3,110,321,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 3,110,292,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 4,610,292,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ................................................................................ +1,499,971,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +1,500,000,000

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), as

amended provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included an increase of $500,000 in the

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program administrative expenses transfer for additional administrative expenses due to the recommended loan levels in the electric municipal rate and FFB accounts, which account for an increase of

$1,500,000,000 above the President’s request.

91

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account:

[Dollars in thousands]

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee

provisions

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $121,128 $121,107 $121,107

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 294,358 294,358 794,358

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 1,600,000 1,600,000 2,600,000

Direct, Treasury Rate .................................................... 500,000 500,000 500,000

Guaranteed electric ....................................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 2,615,486 2,615,465 4,115,465

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 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 4,610,292

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative expenses

2001 appropriation .............. $40,275,000 $10,000 $34,640,000

2002 budget estimate ......... 5,645,000 80,000 35,604,000

Provided in the bill ............. 5,645,000 80,000 36,322,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...... ¥34,630,000 +70,000 +1,682,000

2002 budget estimate .. ............................ ............................ +718,000

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the Program

Account. An appropriation to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and

loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well as for administrative

expenses.

The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs under

credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal year 2001

amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as set by the Office of Management and Budget.

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[Dollars in thousands]

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee

provisions

Loan subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $12,064 $3,609 $3,609

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 20,458 0 0

Direct, Treasury Rate .................................................... 0 0 0

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 0 0 0

Private Sector Guarantee .............................................. 10 80 80

Subtotal ................................................................ 32,532 3,689 3,689

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 7,753 1,736 1,736

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 0 300 300

92

[Dollars in thousands]

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee

provisions

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 0 0 0

Subtotal ................................................................ 7,753 2,036 2,036

Total, Loan subsidies ........................................... 40,285 5,725 5,725

E & T expenses:

Administrative expenses ............................................... 34,640 35,604 36,322

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level ....................................................................................... $174,615,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 0

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 174,615,000

Comparison:

2001 loan level ................................................................................ ...........................

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +174,615,000

The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was required by law to begin

privatization (repurchase of Federally owned stock) in fiscal year

1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market rates

and no longer require Federal assistance.

The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of

directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the

Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and operation.

This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A stock issued

to the United States and outstanding at any time after September

30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. Activities of the

Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a loan level of $174,615,000, the same as the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $174,615,000 above the budget request.

The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal year

2001 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock of the

Rural Telephone Bank.

The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language

using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account to pay for administrative expenses of the Rural

Telephone Bank.

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Administrative expenses

2001 appropriation ............................................. $2,584,000 $2,993,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................... 0 3,082,000

Provided in the bill ............................................. 2,584,000 3,107,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................... ............................ +114,000

2002 budget estimate .................................. +2,584,000 +25,000

93

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.

DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants

2001 appropriation ...................... $400,000,000 0 $26,941,000

2002 budget estimate ................. 400,000,000 0 26,941,000

Provided in the bill ..................... 400,000,000 0 26,941,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .............. ............................ ........................ ........................

2002 budget estimates ......... ............................ ........................ ........................

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990,

as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve the quality of phone services, provide access to advanced telecommunications services and computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities.

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other

facilities providing rural residents access to better health care

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $26,941,000, the same as the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget

request.

The Committee notes that contingent upon authorizing legislation, $1,996,000 will be transferred from distance learning and telemedicine grants to broadband telecommunication grants and

$100,000,000 will be provided for broadband telecommunication

loans.

The Committee expects the Department to give consideration to

the following projects or organizations requesting assistance under

the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program: The development of an assessment and implementation plan for expanded telemedicine services in rural Virginia through the George Mason University (VA) School of Nursing; development of an e-Health and

Telemedicine program through the Valley Children’s Hospital (CA);

assistance to the Hampshire Education Collaborative to create a

distance learning and professional development program throughout Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties, MA; assistance

to the College of Southern Idaho to expand educational program capabilities to serve rural communities; assistance for distance learning and instructional equipment for the Petit Jean College (AR)

Business and Technology Center; funds to develop a Material

Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock; the development and delivery of educational materials

for an aquaculture education and training program by the Harbor

94

Branch Oceanographic Institution and Florida State University; assistance to Darton College (GA) for distance learning; and assistance for the Louisiana Online project to provide communications

access to rural areas through Nicholls State University, Louisiana

Tech University, and Southeastern Louisiana University.

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those

applications judged meritorious when subjected to established review procedures.

(95)

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $569,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 587,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 592,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +23,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +5,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

food, nutrition and consumer activities. The Office has oversight

and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services the Committee provides $592,000, an increase

of $23,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).—The Committee is aware of

the importance of ensuring that farmers participating in the WIC

Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) and the Food Stamp

Program (FSP) are able to participate in Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. In addition, the Committee notes that USDA

has studied and established the technical feasibility of wireless and

other innovative EBT systems for farmers markets, rural route

vendors, and other ‘‘non-traditional’’ vendors operating without access to standard telephone and electricity service.

The Committee directs USDA to make available funds from the

$6 million designated for the development of EBT systems to support state initiatives to implement wireless and other innovative

EBT solutions for farmers markets, farmers, and other retail vendors participating in the WIC FMNP and the FSP to enable them

to continue participating in these programs. As EBT systems replace paper coupons in more states, this will assure that participants in the WIC FMNP and FSP can continue to purchase nutritious locally grown agricultural products, especially fresh fruits and

vegetables, and promote compliance with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.

Fresh Produce Purchases.—The Committee urges the Food and

Nutrition Service to study the feasibility of an incentive pilot program to increase produce consumption under the Food Stamp Program and the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants,

and Children. The pilot program should be based on participation

rates and nutrition health status, with the goal of providing incenVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.005 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
96

tives to increase produce consumption. Increased produce consumption could enhance the control of adverse health conditions such as

diabetes, high blood pressure, and osteoporosis.

Meal Costs and Reimbursements.—The Committee is concerned

about the effect of rising food and labor costs to school meal programs. The Committee understands that the reimbursement rates

for school meals are adjusted annually according to the Consumer

Price Index series 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, and local or

regional cost factors may affect the sufficiency of the reimbursement rates. The Committee understands that an analysis to address similar concerns was last conducted in 1993, and requests a

report to the Committee by January 31, 2002, about Department

plans to update this data.

Milk Beverages.—The Committee encourages the Department to

consider developing a pilot program in which milk beverage machines are placed in schools, and suggests that the state of Iowa

be considered a candidate for such a program.

School Lunch Salad Bars.—The Committee is concerned about

school lunch nutrition, and in particular about increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables among children. The Committee

directs the Department to analyze data collected in the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, Part II to compare the amount

of fruit and vegetables available to children in schools with salad/

fruit bars versus those without salad/fruit bars. The Committee requests a report on this analysis by April 1, 2002.

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.

Nutrition assistance programs are intended to provide access to a

nutritionally adequate diet for families and persons with low-incomes, and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s

children. These programs include:

Child Nutrition Programs.—Federal assistance is provided to the

50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,

and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to

children attending schools of high school grades or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to improve the health and wellbeing of the Nation’s children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments

to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of fluid

milk by children.

Food Stamp Program.—This program is aimed at making more

effective use of the Nation’s food supply and at improving nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most cases,

through the issuance of food coupons which may be used in retail

stores for the purchase of food. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35) authorized a block grant for

97

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income

households.

The program includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to

low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations who

choose not to participate in the Food Stamp Program. The program

also includes $100,000,000 for commodity purchases under the

Emergency Food Assistance Program.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—This program helps to safeguard the health

of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants,

and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by providing

food packages designed to supplement each participant’s diet with

foods that are typically lacking. Delivery of supplemental foods

may be done through health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail

food stores, or other approved methods which a cooperating State

health agency may select.

The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program provides WIC or WICeligible participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. The program is designed to accomplish two major goals: (1)

improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers’ markets by low-income

households.

The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP).—This program combines funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program

(CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).

CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to

age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women

with low-incomes who reside in approved project areas. In addition,

this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at

low-income elderly persons.

TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in the

cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for needy

individuals.

Food Donations Programs.—Nutritious agricultural commodities

are provided to residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and

the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing

agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use in non-Presidentially declared

disasters and for FNS administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.

Food Program Administration.—This account represents most

salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition

Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP).

The Center oversees improvements in and revisions to the nutrition guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing and

coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to improve

the health of all Americans.

98

Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section

32).—This program includes the donation of commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of the Agricultural

Marketing Service. Special programs provide food to needy children

and adults who are suffering from general and continued hunger.

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Direct appropriation Transfer from

section 32 Total program level

2001 appropriation ........ $4,413,931,000 $5,127,579,000 $9,541,510,000

2002 budget estimate ... 4,731,490,000 5,357,256,000 10,088,746,000

Provided in the bill ....... 4,748,038,000 5,340,708,000 10,088,746,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation +334,107,000 +213,129,000 +547,236,000

2002 budget estimate .................... +16,548,000 ¥16,548,000 ..............................

Working through State agencies, the Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) provides Federal assistance in cash and commodities for use

in preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while they

are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away from home. The purpose

of this program is to help maintain the health and proper physical

development of America’s children. The child nutrition account includes the School Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program;

the Summer Food Service Program; and Child and Adult Care Food

Programs. In addition, the Special Milk Program provides funding

for milk service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally

assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either free or

at a low cost depending on their family income level. FNS provides

cash subsidies to State administered programs and directly administers the program in the States which have chosen not to do so.

Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and

transfer from section 32. Grants are also made for nutritional

training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under

current legislation, most of these payments are made on the basis

of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches

and breakfasts actually served by the States.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, contains a number of child nutrition

provisions. These include:

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).—Reauthorizes the program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.

School Breakfast Program (SBP).—(1) Authorizes a pilot project

to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to all students

without regard to family income; and (2) requires participating

schools to obtain a food safety inspection conducted by a State or

local agency.

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).—Authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in afterschool programs. Permanently authorizes and provides funds for

demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children and

family day care homes in low-income areas. Beginning on July 1,

99

1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless

Summer Food Service Program transfer into CACFP.

National School Lunch Program (NSLP).—(1) Significantly expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in afterschool care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in needy areas;

and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.

Special Milk Program.—Through the Special Milk Program,

funds are provided to State agencies to reimburse eligible participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk consumed. Under Public Law 97–35, participation in the Special Milk Program is restricted to schools and institutions that do not participate in another meal service program authorized by the Child Nutrition or

School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 1986, based on authority

in Public Law 99–661, children in split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do not have access to the meal

service programs operating in those schools may participate in the

program.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a

total of $10,088,746,000, an increase of $547,236,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as included in the budget request. Of the total amount provided,

$4,748,038,000 is by direct appropriation and $5,340,708,000 is by

transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:

School lunch program ..................................................................... $5,759,232,000

School breakfast program .............................................................. 1,579,752,000

Child and adult care food program ............................................... 1,878,179,000

Summer food service program ....................................................... 325,341,000

Special milk program ..................................................................... 15,940,000

State administrative expenses ....................................................... 129,929,000

Commodity procurement ................................................................ 372,536,000

School meals initiative ................................................................... 9,991,000

Food safety education ..................................................................... 1,998,000

Coordinated review effort .............................................................. 4,507,000

Computer support ........................................................................... 9,341,000

School lunch program integrity ..................................................... 2,000,000

Total ......................................................................................... $10,088,746,000

‘‘Buy American’’ Report.—FNS is directed to provide a report to

the Committee 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.

Competitive Foods.—The Committee thanks the Department for

its report on food sold in competition with the school food service

programs. While the Report cites Congressional action that would

strengthen the ability of the Department, the States and local

schools to develop meaningful competitive foods policies, the Department at this time is not planning to seek such authority. While

the Committee directs the Department to fully utilize the authority

that it has to deal with the situation, the Committee strongly urges

the Department to promptly review these recommendations for additional authority, and to request such authority from the authorizing committees of the House and Senate.

100

Ohio School Food Service.—The Committee understands that the

Department and State of Ohio authorities continue to work to develop effective proposals to develop alternative means for meeting

the additional requirements under section 301(c) of the Federal

Meat Inspection Act or section 5(c) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The Committee urges all parties to continue to work together to resolve this issue as expeditiously as possible to insure

that children continue to be served nutritious and safe meals.

Nutrition Education.—The nutritional status of our young people

is a matter of public health. The Committee expects the Department to build upon work already done with the food pyramid, and

other innovative national and local efforts. Nutrition information

should be carefully reviewed so that a consistent and coordinated

message is disseminated. Existing opportunities to convey nutrition

messages, including newsletters, static displays in cafeterias, inschool and cable television productions should be used to the maximum extent possible. The Committee directs the Department to

provide a report regarding the development and implementation of

this effort by February 1, 2002.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $4,043,086,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 4,137,086,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 4,137,086,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +94,000,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant,

breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children up

to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1999, Public Law 105–336, reauthorizes the program through 2003

and added several provisions to the program. The act requires that

an individual seeking certification or recertification in the program

must provide documentation of family income.

Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.—The act permits State agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering

the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the weighted average retail price for different brands of formula in that State does

not vary by more than 5 percent.

The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is designed to

accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’

markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and use of farmers’

markets by low-income households.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an appropriaVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.005 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
101

tion of $4,137,086,000, an increase of $94,000,000 above the

amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as in

the budget request.

The President’s fiscal year 2002 budget request estimates that

WIC participation will average 7.25 million during fiscal 2002 and

the level of funds recommended supports that participation level.

The WIC program is projected to carry over more than

$100,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002.

Electronic Benefit Transfer.—The Committee recommendation includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of infrastructure funding at $10,000,000, which includes funding to develop EBT systems.

Farmers’ Markets.—The Committee provides new language regarding the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and activities relating to senior farmers’ market nutrition. The Committee recommends that up to $25,000,000 be available for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and up to $15,000,000 for senior farmers’ market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed to maintain

current caseload levels.

Encouraging Healthy Eating Habits.—Because more than half of

WIC participants are children aged one through four, the Committee believes that encouraging these children to eat fresh fruits

and vegetables through this program is crucial not only to their

health, but also to establishing healthful, nutritious eating habits

for life. This is consistent with both the goals of the WIC program

and the new Dietary Guidelines.

Participation Data.—The Committee is concerned that participation in the WIC program has been higher in recent months than

had been anticipated. This higher participation rate raises concerns

about the sufficiency of the appropriation request for FY 2002. WIC

Program Directors restrict participation to the limits provided by

this appropriation, and do not anticipate supplemental appropriations during the course of the fiscal year. The Committee will monitor and review the need for additional WIC funding in advance of

conference on the FY 2002 bill.

WIC Food Prescription.—The Committee notes that the WIC food

prescription has changed little since 1974. In 1994, and again in

1998, USDA solicited comments in a draft policy on food substitutions to accommodate food preferences and ethnic cultural eating

patterns. However, 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 the needs of culturally sensitive populations,

and to provide a report to the Committee regarding the status of

the matter prior to the FY 2003 hearings.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $20,119,228,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 21,991,986,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 21,991,986,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +1,872,758,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

102

The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of

1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible

households receive food stamps with which they can purchase food

through regular retail stores. They are thus enabled to obtain a

more nutritious diet than would be possible without food stamp assistance.

Participating households receive free food stamps in amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 1975, food

stamp projects have been established throughout the country. State

social service agencies assume responsibility for certifying eligible

households and issuing the stamps through suitable outlets. The

Food and Nutrition Service establishes a range of household food

stamp allotments which are updated annually.

Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for food

purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained by

the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the paper

food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). By the end

of fiscal year 2000, thirty-six systems (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,

Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming) and the District of

Columbia were Statewide and five systems (California, Iowa,

Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin) were operating EBT in parts

of the State. All other States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT systems.

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations

who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp Program.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis.

In addition, State agencies which reduce quality control error

rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 percent of their administrative expenses. Also, State agencies are paid

up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the program on Indian reservations. The Food Stamp Program is in operation in all

50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.

The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on States which

fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed target.

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.—The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97–35, authorized a block grant

for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition assistance proVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.005 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
103

gram which is specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income

households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, funding for this block

grant program was included under the food stamp appropriation

account.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides

$21,991,986,000, an increase of $1,872,758,000 above the amount

available in fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the budget

request. The total amount includes $1,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2002; $1,335,550,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and $100,000,000 for the emergency food

assistance program.

The Committee recommendation includes up to $7,000,000 for

the purchase of a sufficient amount of food stamp coupons to supply the remaining needs of recipients until electronic benefit transfer transition is complete, if the Secretary certifies that such purchases are necessary.

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $139,991,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 139,991,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 152,813,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +12,822,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +12,822,000

The Commodity Assistance Program provides funding for the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program

(TEFAP).

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The CSFP provides

supplemental food to infants and children up to age six, and to

pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low-incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.

The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104–127) reauthorized CSFP through

fiscal year 2002. In addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4

million pounds of nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese

to the program annually, subject to availability.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—TEFAP provides

grant funds to State agencies to assist in the cost of storage and

distribution of donated commodities for needy individuals.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $152,813,000 for the

commodity assistance program, an increase of $12,822,000 above

the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and $12,822,000 above

the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include the rescission of $5,300,000 proposed for CSFP in the budget

request.

The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration of

the emergency food assistance program, an increase of $5,000,000

over the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and $5,000,000 over

104

the budget request. These funds may be used for administration

purposes or for food costs at the discretion of the states.

The Committee has included language providing $21,820,000 for

administrative expenses for the Commodity Supplemental Food

Program.

The Committee provides new language regarding activities relating to senior farmers’ market nutrition. The Committee recommends that up to $15,000,000 be available for senior farmers’

market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed to maintain

current caseload levels.

Addition of States to CSFP.—The Committee has provided funds

to support the addition of five additional states to the CSFP.

Food Distribution and Preservation.—The Committee believes

that there is an abundant and affordable supply of surplus foods,

but the lack of distribution and transportation capacity can limit

the program’s effectiveness. The Committee urges the Department

to support programs that can expand food distribution, particularly

for those organizations that serve large regions. In addition, the

Committee is aware that perishable produce may be stabilized

through flash freezing. The Department is encouraged to work with

and support community service organizations to explore this option.

FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $150,751,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 150,749,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 150,749,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥2,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

Nutrition Program for the Elderly.—The Nutrition Program for

the Elderly (NPE) provides cash and commodities to States for distribution to local organizations that prepare meals served to elderly

persons in congregate settings or delivered to their homes. The program promotes good health through nutrition assistance by reducing the isolation experienced by the elderly. This program is a supplement to the Department of Health and Human Services’

(DHHS) funding for programs for the elderly with cash commodities on a per meal basis for each meal served to an elderly person.

Pacific Island Assistance.—This program provides for a directly

funded food distribution program for low-income individuals in the

nuclear-affected islands. This program attempts to alleviate hunger

and malnutrition in low-income households by providing nutritious

agricultural commodities to eligible persons. It also provides funding for use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’

administrative costs in connection with disaster relief.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an appropriation of $150,749,000, a decrease of $2,000 from the amount

available for fiscal year 2001, and the same amount as the budget

request. Included in this amount is $149,668,000 for the nutrition

program for the elderly.

105

FOOD PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $116,550,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2 125,546,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 126,656,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +10,106,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +1,110,000

1Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of $1,000,000 (P.L. 106–387)

for studies and evaluations. 2Does not reflect $1,996,000 transferred to the Congressional Hunger Center Foundation provided by P.L. 106–387.

The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for

most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition

Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC); the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, administrative expenses of

The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers’ Market

Nutrition Program; the Food Donations Programs, including the

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Pacific Island Assistance and

Disaster Feeding; the Food Stamp Program and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

The major objective of food program administration is to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance programs

mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the following: (1)

giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and other

advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing

progress toward program objectives; and (4) carrying out regular

staff support functions.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided

$126,656,000, an increase of $10,106,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $1,110,000 above the

budget request.

The recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 for research,

evaluation, and assessment activities and $1,800,000 to improve

FNS information technology.

Dietary Guidelines.—The Committee encourages the Center for

Nutrition Policy and Promotion to conduct ongoing research on

modifications to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000 to revise the food guide pyramid and related educational materials as

needed.

(106)

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

Appropriation Transfer from loan accounts Total, FAS

2001 appropriation ...................... $115,170,000 ($4,257,000) ($119,427,000)

2002 budget estimate ................. 121,563,000 (4,257,000) (125,820,000)

Provided in the bill ..................... 122,631,000 (4,257,000) (126,888,000)

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .............. +7,461,000 ........................ (+7,461,000)

2002 budget estimate .......... +1,068,000 ........................ (+1,068,000)

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) was established March

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, Supplement 1.

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The primary function of this organization is to help American agriculture in maintaining and expanding foreign markets for agriculture products vital to the economic well-being of the nation. It

maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and reporting service to assist the U.S. agricultural industry in its export operations

through a continuous program of analyzing and reporting foreign

agricultural production, markets, and policies. It attempts to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products through administration of special export programs and through helping to secure

international trade conditions that are favorable toward American

products. FAS is also responsible for coordinating, planning, and

directing the Department’s programs in international development

and technical cooperation in food and agriculture formerly carried

out by the Office of International Cooperation and Development.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $122,631,000 and transfers of $4,257,000, for a

total program level of $126,888,000, an increase of $7,461,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$1,068,000 above the budget request.

The Committee has included an additional $250,000 to continue

efforts begun in fiscal year 2001 to increase FAS presence in

Ukraine.

Azores.—The Committee urges the Department to devote necessary resources to establish the Azores Collaborative Research

and Education Group to assist the U.S. Government in meeting its

treaty obligations to the government of Portugal.

Currency fluctuations.—The Committee provides bill language

permitting the Department to maintain up to $2,000,000 solely for

the purpose of offsetting international currency fluctuations.

107

U.S. commodities.—The Committee continues to believe that

commodity assistance, including monetization, is a vital tool to help

alleviate the needs of recipients, and a prudent way to help move

commodities that are in surplus and urgently needed. In any review of international commodity assistance, including section 416,

the Committee expects that its prior directives on the matter be

given full consideration. Further, while any change in Executive

Administration will routinely delay decisions ordinarily made in

the normal course of business, the Committee remains concerned

that decisions with respect to commodity assistance are being made

too late in the year to be of maximum value. The Committee directs the Department to develop a system for making these decisions no later than February 15 of each year, and to report to the

Committee on the steps taken to implement this system.

Rice.—The Committee includes language that the Secretary of

Agriculture shall use currently available authorities to ensure that

all forms of rice (rough, brown and milled) are fairly represented

in all Department of Agriculture food aid, export market development, export promotion and other export related programs.

Quality samples program.—The Committee expects that the

Quality Samples Program (QSP) administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service will be continued to help develop new markets and

expand existing markets for United States agricultural products.

Funds made available through CCC to carry out activities under

the QSP shall be no less than $2,500,000, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee recommends bill language which states that none

of the funds appropriated in this account may be used to pay the

salaries and expenses of personnel to disburse funds to any rice

trade association under the market access program or the foreign

market development program at any time when the applicable

international activity agreement for such program is not in effect.

PUBLIC LAW 480

PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the Program

Account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans obligated in 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 legislation 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.

108

Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used in

carrying out activities under section 104 of the Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended. Activities in

the recipient country for which these local currencies may be used

include developing new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities,

paying U.S. obligations, and supporting agricultural development

and research.

Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food for

Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on credit

terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their agricultural

economies.

Ocean freight differential costs in connection with commodities

sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars (title I).—The

Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight differential costs

on shipments under this title. These costs are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping costs.

Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad

(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agencies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.

Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad

(title III).—Commodities are supplied without cost to least developed countries through foreign governments for direct feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity Credit Corporation

may pay ocean freight on shipments under this title, and may also

pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well

as internal distribution costs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy levels, and

administrative costs for all Public Law 480 programs:

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Public Law 480 Program Account:

Title I—Credit sales:

Direct loans ................................................................... ($159,327,000) ($139,399,000) ($150,000,000)

Ocean freight differential ............................................. 20,277,000 20,277,000 20,277,000

Loan subsidies .............................................................. 113,935,000 113,935,000 122,600,000

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad:

Program level ................................................................ (835,159,000) (835,159,000) (835,159,000)

Appropriation ................................................................. 835,159,000 835,159,000 835,159,000

Title III—Commodity grants:

Program level ................................................................ (0) (0) (0)

109

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee provisions

Appropriation ................................................................. 0 0 0

Salaries and expenses:

General Sales Manager ................................................. 1,033,000 1,033,000 1,033,000

FSA ................................................................................ 813,000 972,000 980,000

Subtotal .................................................................... 1,846,000 2,005,000 2,013,000

Total, Public Law 480:

Program level .................................................. (835,159,000) (835,159,000) (835,159,000)

Appropriation ................................................... 971,217,000 971,376,000 980,049,000

Rural electrification.—The Committee recognizes the importance

of rural electrification as part of U.S. foreign assistance efforts. A

direct linkage can be made between rural electrification and improved agriculture production, lower birth rates, microenterprise

development, and better medical care. The committee is pleased

with the track record and success of rural electrification programs

based on the electric cooperative model and encourages the Department to consider proposals submitted by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and other organizations through the

Food for Progress and related programs to advance rural electrification projects in developing nations.

Funds interchange.—The Committee has included bill language

providing that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably.

CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2001 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,812,000

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,014,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,021,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ...................................................................... +209,000

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. +7,000

Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided by

CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to finance

U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM–102 program covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. The GSM– 103 program provides intermediate-term credit with repayment

terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as

amended, requires that not less than $5.5 billion be made available

annually from 1996 through 2002 for GSM–102 and GSM–103. The

FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the Emerging Markets Export

Credit Program.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the Program

Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees committed in 2001 and beyond, as well as for administrative expenses.

Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not by annual appropriation.

110

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $4,021,000, an increase of $209,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $7,000

above the budget request.

(111)

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Prescription drug

user fee Total, FDA, S&E

2001 appropriation .......... 1 2 $1,066,173,000 $149,273,000 $1,215,446,000

2002 budget estimate ..... 3 1,173,673,000 161,716,000 1,335,389,000

Provided in the bill ......... 3 1,180,623,000 161,716,000 1,342,339,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation .. +114,450,000 +12,443,000 +126,893,000

2002 budget estimate ...................... +6,950,000 ............................ +6,950,000 1 Reflects $2,470,000 rescission.

2This amount does not include $22,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.

3This amount does not include $2,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The agency’s

mission and sole objective is to protect and promote the public

health through its science-based core activities of premarket review

and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction over a wide variety of products that affect every person, every day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe and effective, as well as properly

labeled.

FDA works extensively with stakeholders—industry, consumers,

and other interested parties—to: (1) set food and product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medical

devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct and sponsor research

studies to detect health hazards and violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency’s base of scientific knowledge to

allow for better regulatory decision-making; (4) inform business

firms and consumers about FDA-related topics; (5) work with state

and local agencies to develop programs that will supplement or

complement those of FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods,

drugs, medical devices and electronic products to ensure that they

are safe, effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action

when necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace

and to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.

FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to meet

statutory requirements and its mission: research and developmentfueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities; greater product

complexity driven by breakthroughs in technology; growth in the

recognized adverse effects associated with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats; continued cooperative activities

112

needed in the international arena; and the increased volume and

diversity of imports.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides a total direct appropriation of $1,180,623,000 for salaries and expenses and makes available an additional $161,716,000 in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, for a total of

$1,342,339,000. This is an increase of $126,893,000 above the total

amount available in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,950,000

above the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends $2,950,000 be available

to the agency solely for activities relating to the Medicine Equity

and Drug Safety Act of 2000 (Section 745 of P.L. 106–387), subject

to the requirements of that Act.

Bioengineered Foods.—On January 18, 2001, FDA issued a draft

guidance on the voluntary labeling of foods indicating whether they

have or have not been developed using bioengineering. The Committee directs that no final guidance may be issued without 15-day

advance notice to the Committee.

Breast Implants.—The Committee is concerned about a recent

FDA study revealing alarmingly high rupture rates in silicone

breast implants and the agency’s decision to approve saline breast

implants in spite of high complication and failure rates—particularly among mastectomy patients. The Committee advises the

agency to carefully monitor breast implant manufacturers’ patient

brochures, informed consent documents, and package inserts to ensure they reflect accurate information about such implants, and to

work with manufacturers to ensure women receive full and accurate information before enrolling in any study or undergoing surgery.

Dietary Supplement Adverse Event Reports.—The July 1999 General Accounting Office report (GGD–99–90) on dietary supplements

found that the Adverse Event Report system used by the FDA

needs to be improved. Furthermore, the GAO made specific recommendations to the FDA on what action should be taken to address this situation. More recently, in April 2001, the Office of the

Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human

Services made further recommendations for enhancing the quality

and capability of the FDA’s AER system for dietary supplements.

The Committee is concerned that the FDA has not taken proper

steps to address the concerns outlined in the GAO and OIG reports. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to follow the recommendations made by these reports as a part of the agency’s

overall plan to consolidate and improve the AER system.

Food Allergens.—Seven million Americans suffer from food allergies, and about 150 Americans die each year due to the ingestion

of allergenic foods. Most children who have food allergies have

their first exposure to allergens in their homes. A 2000 survey conducted jointly by the Food and Drug Administration, Minnesota,

and Wisconsin found that one-quarter of the bakery products,

candy, and ice cream sampled were contaminated with peanut or

egg ingredients that were not declared on the product labels. The

Committee is aware that FDA has recently issued guidance on the

113

most common food allergies. However, the Committee is also aware

of a petition filed in May 2000 by the Attorneys General of nine

states requesting that the FDA amend its regulations to require

the disclosure of allergens on food packages. The Committee encourages FDA to promulgate regulations to prevent cross-contamination of foods by undeclared allergens and requests a report from

the agency by December 31, 2001 on its plans to do so.

Food Safety.—To enhance food safety, the Committee supports

the expedited review of food additive petitions that are designed to

decrease the risk of foodborne illness. FDA has implemented an expedited review process for such petitions. The Committee notes

that despite this effort, unacceptable delays persist regarding actions that would permit the expanded use of pathogen-reducing

technologies. The Committee directs FDA to explore additional activities that would permit the expanded use of pathogen-reducing

technologies, particularly including more timely review, food additive petition process enhancements such as premarket consultations for petitions for new uses of irradiation, and developing irradiation labeling that is better understood by the general public.

Generic Drug Application Review.—It is the view of the Committee that ensuring timely access to affordable generic medicines

is an important part of efforts to address the rising cost of prescription drugs. Review times for applications of generic drugs continue

to exceed statutory limits, thus depriving patients and health care

providers of significant savings. The Committee provides an increase above the budget request of $1,500,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to hire reviewers and otherwise assist in accelerating

generic drug reviews.

Generic Drug Education.—It is the view of the Committee that

ensuring timely access to affordable generic medicines is an important part of efforts to address the rising cost of prescription drugs.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for the Office of

Generic Drugs to further work begun this year to develop and implement an education program on the use and therapeutic equivalency of generic pharmaceuticals.

Import Inspections.—The Committee remains concerned that the

FDA physically inspects less than one percent of products imported

into our country. The Committee is also concerned about the increasing and tremendous strain on inspection resources brought

about by the flood of new imports coming into this country as a result of free trade agreements. The Committee encourages the FDA

to consider the import program a priority in the agency’s risk-based

inspection system.

Labeling of Irradiated Foods.—FDA is in the process of developing a proposed rule related to the current labeling requirements

for foods that are treated with ionizing radiation. The Committee

understands that FDA regulations currently permit labeling that

explains why the food is being irradiated, as long as the labeling

is truthful and not misleading. The Committee believes that any

required disclosure should not be perceived as a warning or give

rise to inappropriate consumer anxiety. The Committee believes

the FDA should consider as part of its rulemaking process a proposal to include only those labeling alternatives that are easily understood by the general public.

114

Medical Device Application Review.—The Committee is concerned

about the impact that delays in device application review have on

Americans’ health. The Committee has provided the full level of requested funding for device application review and expects that significant gains in performance will result. The Committee directs

that FDA provide updates of its medical device review performance,

as compared to statutory requirements for application decisions,

with reports to the Committee in January and July 2002.

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.—The

Committee is interested in the function and administration of the

National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), a collaborative effort among the FDA, the Department of Agriculture,

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and directs

the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to

describe the administration of the program in a report to the Committee by March 1, 2002. The report to the Committee should contain a detailed breakout of all FDA funds allocated to NARMS in

fiscal year 2001, including a list of FDA activities, and grants and

funded interagency agreements to other agencies and academic institutions. In addition, include in the report any overhead cost factors used, and note any services or data provided by FDA to other

federal agencies, states, or countries without charge to them.

National Center for Food Safety and Technology.—Within the

amounts provided for food safety, the Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for the National Center for Food Safety and Technology

in Summit-Argo, Illinois, to continue collaborative research in food

safety among government, academia, and private industry.

Office of Women’s Health.—The Committee is concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to gender-based research by the

FDA. Since the Office of Women’s Health was established in 1994,

its budget and its functions have been stagnant in spite of greatly

increased needs. 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 that

FDA develop an agency-wide database focused on women’s health

activities, and that FDA commence a capability assessment for

each Center and the Office of the Commissioner to review currently

available critical clinical trail databases, coordinate data collection

and identify areas in which data gaps exist. The Committee directs

FDA to provide an additional $700,000 to the Office of Women’s

Health for this effort, from within sums provided for all programs,

and to provide the Committee with the capability assessment report and detailed plans for the database by January 31, 2002.

Restrictions on Commercial Speech.—FDA is to report to the

Committee by July 1, 2002, regarding actions it has taken or plans

to take to address any significant and recent questions raised about

whether an FDA rule or policy violates the First Amendment.

Secondary Wholesale Pharmaceutical Industry.—The Committee

supports the recent FDA action to delay the effective date for implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act until April 1, 2002. The Committee is concerned about

the potential impact of the proposed revisions on the secondary

wholesale pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, the Committee is

concerned that the rule in its current form may disproportionately

115

favor a few large distributors at the expense of consumers and genuine competition in the marketplace. The Committee urges the

FDA to revise the rule to address the Committee’s concerns.

Shellfish Safety.—The Committee expects that FDA will continue

its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission

(ISSC) to promote educational and research activities related to

shellfish safety in general, and Vibrio vulnificus in particular. The Committee directs the use of $250,000 for this effort from within

sums provided for food safety. In addition, the Committee understands that FDA’s Office of Seafood has a memorandum of understanding with ISSC to work on assuring the safety and quality of

shellfish, including regulation development when needed. The Committee directs that FDA continue this work with the ISSC, and

that FDA continue to devote not less than $200,000 to these efforts.

Shellfish Safety Goals.—While the Committee supports the efforts by the Food and Drug Administration in reducing the rate of

illness due to Vibrio vulnificus, it is concerned about the

achievability of the illness rate reduction goals and the severity of

consequences for failure in reaching those goals being proposed by

the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). The Committee encourages FDA and the ISSC to work with the state regulatory authorities and industry to ensure that the impact to the affected states is understood and mitigated as these reduction goals

are developed, consistent with latest scientific information available. Furthermore, the Committee supports the continued emphasis on education of at-risk individuals and their medical caretakers.

White Oak, Maryland, Relocation.—The Committee recommends

language, as requested, that extends the availability of $6,000,000

until September 30, 2003, for costs related to occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland.

Recommendations by activity.—The Committee recommends that

of the total amount provided: (1) $307,552,000 shall be for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) $349,397,000 shall be for

the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (3) $155,375,000 shall be

for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4)

$81,467,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for

related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5)

$179,521,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and Radiological

Health and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory

Affairs; (6) $37,082,000 shall be for the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR); (7) $31,798,000 shall be for Rent and

Related activities, other than the amounts paid to the General

Services Administration; (8) $105,116,000 shall be for payments to

the General Services Administration for rent and related costs; and

(9) $95,031,000 shall be for other activities, including the Office of

the Commissioner, the Office of Senior Associate Commissioner,

the Office of International and Constituent Relations, the Office of

Policy, Planning, and Legislation, the Office of Management and

Systems, and central services for these offices. Funds may be transferred from one specified activity to another with the prior approval

of the Committee.

116

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $31,281,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 34,281,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 34,281,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +3,000,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The Buildings and Facilities account was established for repair

and improvement of existing facilities, as well as for construction

of new facilities when needed.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of $34,281,000, an

increase of $3,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2001 and the same amount as the budget request.

The Committee recommends $8,281,000 for repairs and improvements to existing facilities, and $3,000,000 for continuing construction of phase III at the Arkansas Regional Laboratory. The Committee supports replacement of the Los Angeles laboratory, and

provides an appropriation of $23,000,000 for the second and final

phase of laboratory construction.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2001 appropriation ................................................................................ $67,850,000

2002 budget estimate ............................................................................ 70,400,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 70,700,000

Comparison:

2001 appropriation ......................................................................... +2,850,000

2002 budget estimate ..................................................................... +300,000

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures

and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring their

integrity, and protecting participants and the public against manipulation, fraud, and abusive trade practices. The objective is to enable the markets to better serve their designated function in providing a price discovery mechanism and as a means of offsetting

price risk. In properly serving these functions, the futures markets

contribute toward better planning, more efficient distribution and

consumption, and more economical marketing.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $70,700,000, an increase of $2,850,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$300,000 above the budget request.

117

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2001 limitation .................................................................................... ($36,719,000)

2002 budget estimate ......................................................................... (36,700,000)

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (36,700,000)

Comparison:

2001 limitation ............................................................................ (¥19,000)

2002 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to the

Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by Reorganization Plan

No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23, 1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the direction of a Federal

Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The Farm Credit Amendments

Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–205) clarified the FCA’s role as an arm’slength financial regulator, granting it the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal financial regulatory agencies.

The Act also replaced the Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-time Board members with the FCA Board,

comprised of a Chairman and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time capacity. Not more than two members of the

Board shall be members of the same political party.

The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System). The

FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority of

the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2002 et seq.). The institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, production credit

associations, Federal land credit associations, agricultural credit

associations, and one Agricultural Credit Bank. The combined lending activities in the System institutions provided short- and longterm credit to the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and producers and

harvesters of aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of

the System is funded through the sale of systemwide consolidated

bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the institutions are fully liable for the payment of these securities. The

operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the System institutions

and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a special fund in the Treasury

which is available for the use of the FCA.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration, the Committee provides $36,700,000, a decrease of $19,000

below the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same

amount as the budget request.

(118)

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for

fiscal year 2002 are fundamentally the same as those included in

last year’s appropriations bill.

Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds from being

used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural America.

Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds from being

used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food

Systems.

Section 724: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.

Section 725: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user fee

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.

Section 726: Language is included that provides that no funds

shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December

11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.

Section 727: Language is included that provides that no funds

may be used to close or relocate a state Rural Development office

unless or until cost effectiveness and enhancement of program delivery have been determined.

Section 728: Language is included that provides $4,000,000 for a

hunger fellowship program.

Section 729: Language is included that provides that, hereafter,

refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis from a credit card

services provider under the Department of Agriculture’s charge

card programs may be deposited to and retained without fiscal year

limitation in the Departmental Working Capital fund, and may be

used to fund management initiatives of general benefit to the Department as determined by the Secretary.

Section 730: Language is included that provides that any balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be used to carry out

Title II of such Act. Funds were last appropriated for Title III programming in FY 1999. However, there are Title III balances remaining of less than $500,000. This provision allows remaining

Title III account balances to be used for Title II programming since

no new Title III programming is anticipated. This provision will

allow the use of remaining Title III balances for Title II even

though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the

funds available for Title III may be used to carry out Title II.

119

Section 731: Language is included that amends Section

375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund.

Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the use of funds

to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to promulgate a proposed

rule, or to otherwise change or modify the definition of ‘‘animal’’ in

existing regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act.

Section 733: Language is included that provides that the City of

Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, California, shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the Rural Community

Advancement Program.

Section 734: Language is included that provides that the City of

Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered as meeting the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Section 735: Language is included that makes the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans administered by the

rural development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.

Section 736: Language is included that makes the City of Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs in the rural development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.

Section 737: Language is included stating that none of the funds

appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used

to maintain, modify, or implement any assessment against agricultural producers as part of a commodity promotion, research, and

consumer information order, known as a check-off program, that

has not been approved by the affected producers in accordance with

the statutory requirements applicable to the order.

Section 738: Language is included that prohibits funds to close

or relocate certain Food and Drug Administration offices in St.

Louis, Missouri

Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the use of funds

to reduce staff levels at certain Food and Drug Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.

Section 740: Language is included that provides emergency funds

for market loss payments for apple producers.

(120)

TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED BALANCES

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing

the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the accompanying

bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations by clause 1(b)(3) of rule

X.

1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.—

The bill allows transfers to or from the rental payments account

based on changing space requirements.

2. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required.

3. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.

4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.—

The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies.

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of

animals, plants, and poultry.

6. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill limits the transfer of

section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.

7. Farm Service Agency.—The bill provides that funds provided

to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the salaries

and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference.

9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.—The bill provides that

funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm Service

Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds may be

transferred among lending programs.

10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred

to and merged with this account.

11. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Electrification and

Telecommunications Loans program account; and Rural Telephone

Bank program account.—The bill provides that administrative

funds shall be transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and

Expenses Account.

12. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to

transfer section 32 funds to these programs.

121

13. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—The bill permits the use of funds for other

programs under certain conditions.

14. Commodity Assistance Program.—The bill permits the use of

funds for another activity under certain conditions.

15. Foreign Agricultural Service.—The bill allows for the transfer

of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.

16. Public Law 480.—The bill provides that funds made available

for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably.

17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform.

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most

instances, these provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative committees.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which require annual authorization or additional legislation which to date has not been enacted.

Language is included in the bill in several accounts that earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities

as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1994.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law:

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses,

as determined by the Secretary.

2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— Language is included that allows for the reconfiguration and release of space back into the General Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space rental cost for space not needed for

USDA programs. Language is included which allows the transfer

of limited amounts to and from this account to cover new or increased costs until those costs can be included in subsequent budget requests to the Congress.

3. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of

hearings.

4. Agricultural Research Service.—The bill includes language

that prohibits funds from being used to carry out research related

to the production, processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco

products. Language is included that allows the Agricultural ReVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.007 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
122

search Service to grant easements at the Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is included that authorizes the

Agricultural Research Service to charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special use authorization for the occupancy or

use of land and facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall

be credited to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until expended.

5. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.—The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being

used to carry out research related to the production, processing or

marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to

non-APHIS personnel.

7. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur.

8. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill includes language

that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS activity related to preparation of standards.

9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events

occur.

10. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments.

11. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for Net

Realized Losses.—Language is included to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which limits

the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.

12. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses.

13. Natural Resources Conservation Service—Conservation Operations.—This language, which has been included in the bill since

1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the

government, although construction on land owned by states and

counties is authorized by basic law.

14. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.—Language,

which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 (P.L.

98–8) and all bills since 1984, provides that funds may be used for

rehabilitation of existing works.

123

15. Rural Housing Service—Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year be funded for a five-year period.

16. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan program

account.—Language is included to allow borrowers’ interest rates

for loans to exceed seven percent.

17. Child Nutrition Programs.—Language is included to prohibit

funds from being used for studies and evaluations, except for

$2,000,000 to be used in a study of integrity methods and practices

in the National School Lunch Program.

18. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used for studies and evaluations, and to allow the use of

funds for the farmers’ market nutrition program, and for senior

farmers’ market activities.

19. Food Stamp Program.—Language is included to prohibit

funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to permit

printing of food coupons under certain conditions.

20. Commodity Assistance Program.—Language is included that

allows a specific funding level for Commodity Supplemental Food

Program administrative expenses and to allow the use of funds for

senior farmers’ market activities.

21. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979

enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving

international development and technical cooperation. Language is

included that prohibits disbursement of funds to any rice trade association under the market access program or the foreign market

development program at any time when the applicable international activity agreement for such program is not in effect. Language is included that prohibits funds from being used to promote

the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses.

22. Food and Drug Administration.—Language is included that

extends the availability of $6,000,000 for costs related to occupancy

of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland, until September 30,

2003. Language is included that provides that $2,950,000 is available solely for carrying out the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety

Act of 2000, subject to the requirements of that Act.

23. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of fund for official reception and representation expenses.

24. General Provisions.—

Section 704: This provision permits the Secretary to transfer

funds made available by this Act, as well as other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, to the

Working Capital fund for the acquisition of plant and capital

equipment, and provides that no funds appropriated to an

agency shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval of the agency administrator.

Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is again included which provides that certain appropriations in this Act

shall remain available until expended where the programs or

124

projects involved are continuing in nature under the provisions

of authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation does

not specifically provide for extended availability. This authority

tends to result in savings by preventing the wasteful practice

often found in government of rushing to commit funds at the

end of the fiscal year without due regard to the value of the

purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended availability is also essential in view of the long lead time frequently

required to negotiate agreements or contracts which normally

extend over a period of more than one year. Under these conditions such authority is commonly provided in Appropriations

Acts where omitted from basic law. These provisions have been

carried through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient and

effective program execution and to assure maximum savings.

They involve the following items: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the integrated systems acquisition

project, the boll weevil program, up to 25 percent of the

screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated

with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection

Service, field automation and information management project;

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,

funds for competitive research grants, funds for the Research,

Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS), and

funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund;

Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country

training program and up to $2,000,000 for foreign currency

fluctuations.

Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal year 1981,

limits the overhead that can be charged on cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This provision is necessary

because many universities attempted to apply the same overhead rates to cooperative agreements as was being applied to

grants and contracts, without giving consideration to the cooperator’s contributions as an offset to the overhead charges.

Section 709: This provision, added in 1987, provides that

none of the funds in this Act may be used to restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This provision allows CCC to

continue to lease space at a lower cost than space leased by

GSA.

Section 710: This provision provides that none of the funds

in this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged

against agricultural research, education, or extension grants

awarded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service in excess of 19 percent of total direct costs,

except for grants available under the Small Business Innovation and Development Act.

Section 711: This provision clarifies that loan levels provided

in the Act are to be considered estimates and not limitations.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of

loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest rates

change, the amount of loan authority will fluctuate.

125

Section 712: This provision allows funds made available in

the current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund

program account; Rural Telephone Bank program account; the

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans program

account; the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account;

and the Rural Economic Development Loans program account

to remain available until expended. The Credit Reform Act requires that the lifetime costs of loans be appropriated. Current

law requires that funds unobligated after five years expire. The

life of some loans extends well beyond the five-year period and

this provision allows funds appropriated to remain available

until the loans are closed out.

Section 713: This provision provides that marketing services

of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service; and the food safety activities of the

Food Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements.

Section 714: This provision provides that the Natural Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative agreements.

Section 715: Provides that not more than 5 percent of the

Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be retired in

fiscal year 2002. The provision also prohibits the maintenance

of any account or subaccount which has not been specifically

authorized by law. The provision also prohibits a transfer of

any unobligated funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone

liquidating account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing

Bank that are in excess of current requirements.

Section 716: Provides that of the funds made available, not

more than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions,

and task forces of the Department of Agriculture except for

panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants.

Section 717: Provides that none of the funds may be used to

carry out certain provisions of meat and poultry inspection

acts.

Section 718: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any

other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days

unless the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment.

Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to

questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process.

Section 720: Language is included that requires approval of

the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of new information technology systems or significant

upgrades, and that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office

126

of the Chief Information Officer without the prior approval of

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Section 721: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations

Acts.

Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural

America.

Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems.

Section 724: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.

Section 725: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user

fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.

Section 726: Language is included that provides that no

funds shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was

adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.

Section 727: Language is included that provides that no

funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and enhancement

of program delivery have been determined.

Section 728: Language is included that provides $4,000,000

for a hunger fellowship program.

Section 729: Language is included that provides that, hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis from a

credit card services provider under the Department of Agriculture’s charge card programs may be deposited to and retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental

Working Capital fund, and may be used to fund management

initiatives of general benefit to the Department as determined

by the Secretary.

Section 730: Language is included that provides that any

balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural

Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be used

to carry out Title II of such Act. Funds were last appropriated

for Title III programming in FY 1999. However, there are Title

III balances remaining of less than $500,000. This provision allows remaining Title III account balances to be used for Title

II programming since no new Title III programming is anticipated. This provision will allow the use of remaining Title III

balances for Title II even though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the funds available for Title III

may be used to carry out Title II.

Section 731: Language is included that amends Section

375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

127

Act regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund.

Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the use of

funds to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to promulgate

a proposed rule, or to otherwise change or modify the definition

of ‘‘animal’’ in existing regulations pursuant to the Animal

Welfare Act.

Section 733: Language is included that provides that the

City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, California,

shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the

Rural Community Advancement Program.

Section 734: Language is included that provides that the

City of Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered as meeting

the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of the Housing

Act of 1949.

Section 735: Language is included that makes the City of St.

Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans administered by

the rural development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.

Section 736: Language is included that makes the City of

Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs in the rural

development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.

Section 737: Language is included stating that none of the

funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act

may be used to maintain, modify, or implement any assessment against agricultural producers as part of a commodity

promotion, research, and consumer information order, known

as a check-off program, that has not been approved by the affected producers in accordance with the statutory requirements

applicable to the order.

Section 738: Language is included that prohibits funds to

close or relocate certain Food and Drug Administration offices

in St. Louis, Missouri.

Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the use of

funds to reduce staff levels at certain Food and Drug Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.

Section 740: Language is included that provides emergency

funds for market loss payments for apple producers.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate 27-JUN-2001 04:26 Jun 28, 2001 Jkt 073176 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR116.007 pfrm01 PsN: HR116
128

ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT ACT

SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) REVOLVING FUND.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) FUNDING.—

(A) * * *

(B) MANDATORY FUNDS.—Out of any moneys in the

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the

Treasury shall provide to the Center not to exceed

ø$25,000,000¿ $26,000,000 to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program and last year of authorization Authorization level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

The following programs are not currently authorized by law:

USDA:

Dairy Indemnity Program:

FY 1995 .......................................... Such sums as necessary ................................. 0 $100

Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger

Fellowships:

(1) ................................................... (1) ..................................................................... (1) 4,000

The following programs are funded in this

bill at levels that exceed those currently

authorized by law:

USDA:

Farm Service Agency:

Direct Farm Loans:

Ownership .............................. $85,000 ............................................................ NA 128,000

Operating ............................... 500,000 ............................................................ NA 600,000

Guaranteed Farm Loans:

Ownership .............................. 750,000 ............................................................ NA 1,000,000

Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service:

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ........................... 4,600 ................................................................ NA 7,100

1 This program has never been authorized. It was initially funded in FY 2000 at $2 million.

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following information is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

129

The bill proposes rescission of $45,000,000 to eliminate the remaining unobligated balance in the Agricultural Conservation Program. This program was terminated at the beginning of 1997 in accordance with the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996.

The bill proposes rescission of $3,616,000 of funds derived from

interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 2002 under

the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, which is

an annual technical adjustment contained in the budget estimates.

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Full committee data

302(b) allocation This bill

Budget

authority Outlays Budgetauthority Outlays

Comparison with Budget Resolution:

Discretionary .................................................................................. $15,519 $15,831 $15,669 $15,974

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 43,112 33,847 43,112 33,847

Total .......................................................................................... 58,631 49,678 58,781 49,821

NOTE.—The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation. However, pursuant to section

314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding

in the reported bill for spending designated as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the

Budget will provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new allocation will eliminate

the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill:

[Five year projections, in millions of dollars]

Budget Authority ................................................................................ $58,781

Outlays:

2002 .............................................................................................. 41,471

2003 .............................................................................................. 6,556

2004 .............................................................................................. 736

2005 .............................................................................................. 362

2006 and beyond .......................................................................... 539

The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and will

have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available under existing law for

fiscal year 2002 and beyond.

130

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to state and local governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

New budget authority ........................................................................ $19,560

Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 16,134

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), the

following information provides the definition of the term ‘‘program,

project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the most specific level of

budget items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 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 required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall apply

any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2002 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99–177 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 state, district, and county offices.

131

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Mr. Cunningham.

Description of motion: To strike bill language providing for a

$500,000 study on the effects of irradiated food, to strike report

language asking the FDA to consider only labeling that is easily

understood by the public, and to insert report language that any

irradiated food labeling requirement should not be perceived as a

warning.

Results: Adopted 31 yeas to 25 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Boyd

Mr. Bonilla Mr. Clyburn

Mr. Cramer Ms. DeLauro

Mr. Cunningham Mr. Dicks

Mr. Doolittle Mr. Edwards

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Farr

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Goode

Ms. Granger Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer

Mr. Istook Ms. Kaptur

Mr. Kingston Mr. Kennedy

Mr. Knollenberg Ms. Kilpatrick

Mr. LaHood Mrs. Meek

Mr. Latham Mr. Mollohan

Mr. Lewis Mr. Obey

Mr. Murtha Mr. Olver

Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Pastor

Mrs. Northup Mr. Price

Mr. Peterson Mr. Rothman

Mr. Regula Ms. Roybal-Allard

Mr. Rogers Mr. Sabo

Mr. Skeen Mr. Serrano

Mr. Sununu Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Taylor Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

132

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of motion: To provide $500,000,000 in contingent

emergency appropriations for the establishment of a biofuels program.

Results: Rejected 18 yeas to 31 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Farr Mr. DeLay

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Doolittle

Ms. Kaptur Mrs. Emerson

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mrs. Meek Mr. Goode

Mr. Mollohan Ms. Granger

Mr. Obey Mr. Hobson

Mr. Olver Mr. Istook

Mr. Pastor Mr. Kingston

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Price Mr. LaHood

Mr. Rothman Mr. Latham

Mr. Sabo Mr. Lewis

Mr. Serrano Mr. Miller

Mr. Nethercutt

Mrs. Northup

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Regula

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Young

133

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Ms. DeLauro.

Description of motion: To provide $50,000,000 in contingent

emergency appropriations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service and $163,000,000 in contingent emergency appropriations for

the Food and Drug Administration for food safety activities.

Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 29 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Mr. Cunningham Mr. Doolittle

Ms. DeLauro Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Dicks Mr. Goode

Mr. Farr Ms. Granger

Mr. Fattah Mr. Istook

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Kingston

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg

Ms. Kaptur Mr. LaHood

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Latham

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Lewis

Mrs. Meek Mr. Miller

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Obey Mrs. Northup

Mr. Olver Mr. Peterson

Mr. Pastor Mr. Regula

Mr. Price Mr. Rogers

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sherwood

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sununu

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

134

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 4

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of motion: To require continuation of the Global Food

for Education Initiative at the fiscal year 2001 level, with directed

scorekeeping.

Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 32 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Edwards Mr. DooLittle

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode

Mr. Fattah Mr. Granger

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson

Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Knollenberg

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood

Mrs. Meek Mr. Latham

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Lewis

Mr. Obey Mr. Miller

Mr. Pastor Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Price Mrs. Northup

Mr. Rothman Mr. Peterson

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Skeen

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Sununu

Mr. Wicker Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

135

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 5

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.

Description of motion: To provide contingent emergency appropriations of $150,000,000 in Commodity Credit Corporation funds

for market loss assistance for apple producers.

Results: Adopted 34 yeas to 24 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Hobson

Mr. Farr Mr. Istook

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Kingston

Mr. Goode Mr. LaHood

Ms. Granger Mr. Latham

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Lewis

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Miller

Mr. Jackson Mrs. Northup

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Regula

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Rogers

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Skeen

Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Sununu

Mrs. Meek Mr. Taylor

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Vitter

Mr. Obey Mr. Wamp

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Wicker

Mr. Peterson Mr. Young

Mr. Price

Mr. Rothman

Ms. Roybal-Allard

Mr. Sabo

Mr. Serrano

Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wolf

136


Insert offset folio 01 here HR116.001
137


Insert offset folio 02 here HR116.002
138


Insert offset folio 03 here HR116.003
139


Insert offset folio 04 here HR116.004
140


Insert offset folio 05 here HR116.005
141


Insert offset folio 06 here HR116.006
142


Insert offset folio 07 here HR116.007
143


Insert offset folio 08 here HR116.008
144


Insert offset folio 09 here HR116.009
145


Insert offset folio 010 here HR116.010
146


Insert offset folio 011 here HR116.011
147


Insert offset folio 012 here HR116.012
148


Insert offset folio 013 here HR116.013
149


Insert offset folio 014 here HR116.014
150


Insert offset folio 015 here HR116.015
151


Insert offset folio 016 here HR116.016
152


Insert offset folio 017 here HR116.017
153


Insert offset folio 018 here HR116.018
154


Insert offset folio 019 here HR116.019
155


Insert offset folio 020 here HR116.020
(156)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

OVERVIEW

We believe that the Committee has produced a reasonable bill,

given the resources available to it.

We do have serious concerns about four important issues—food

safety, the Global Food for Education Initiative, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

program and biofuels.

We regret that the Committee bill does not adequately address

what we believe are important needs in each of these areas. We

will continue to press for the resources needed in these areas as

this bill moves forward.

IMPROVING FOOD SAFETY

In the area of food safety, some of the most commonly cited statistics are that 76 million Americans become ill, 325,000 require

hospitalization and 5,000 die every year from foodborne illnesses.

These statistics come from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

These statistics are disturbing. Clearly, our food safety system is

in need of improvement.

The FDA acknowledged that there are shortfalls in our current

food inspection process, in testimony before the Subcommittee this

year.

The agency said, ‘‘The inspectional coverage of food manufacturers, particularly high risk manufacturers, has been inadequate over

the past several years.’’

With respect to imported foods, the agency said:

Inspections of imported products are also of great concern. FDA physically inspects less than one percent of all

imported products brought into the U.S. that are under

FDA’s jurisdiction. The vast majority of active pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured overseas are imported

to the U.S. The importation of food from other countries

has been growing rapidly over the past decade, and continues to grow. In FY 2002, we expect to receive 7 million

food import entries. FDA must improve foreign inspection

and physical port inspection coverage and oversight of foreign producers to be able to maintain the safety of products on that market that we believe Americans expect and

demand.

The agency that is charged with ensuring the safety of so much

of the food we eat clearly believes more must be done.

157

During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative Rosa

DeLauro offered an amendment that would have begun the process

of substantially enhancing food safety inspection in this country. The amendment would have provided $213 million in fiscal year

2002 to FDA and USDA for food safety. The funding would have

put us on a path to achieving what the FDA identified before the

Subcommittee this year as an ‘‘optimum’’ domestic food facility inspection schedule. In addition, it would have begun to move us toward a level of 10% inspection by FDA of imported foods. Finally,

it included $50 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service

at the Department of Agriculture so that it could fund actions it

deemed necessary to improve FSIS’s inspection of the meat and

poultry products over which it has responsibility.

This important amendment was unfortunately defeated by a vote

of 23 to 29.

The defeat of this amendment was regrettable. But we will continue to work this year to give FDA and USDA the resources necessary to make significant improvements in the safety of the foods

we eat every day.

GLOBAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

In 2000, the United States announced an important new international food aid initiative for children. Called the ‘‘Global Food for

Education Initiative,’’ the program is currently underway in this

fiscal year, 2001.

Two of its leading proponents are Ambassador George McGovern

and former Senator Bob Dole.

The program is designed to provide a nutritious meal to children—both to feed them and to encourage them to remain in

school. Working through the United Nations World Food Program,

private voluntary organizations and foreign governments, the program aims to feed about 9 million children in 38 countries.

But the Secretary of Agriculture has not decided whether to continue this program in fiscal year 2002, leaving program participants and beneficiaries uncertain about its future.

Bipartisan bills have recently been introduced in both the House

and Senate to continue the program.

While those bills are under consideration, it is important that the

future of the program be assured.

For this reason, Representative Marcy Kaptur offered an amendment during Committee markup to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to continue the GFEI program in fiscal year 2002, at the

level it was implemented in fiscal year 2001.

Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 26 to

32.

We urge the Department to make the decision now to continue

to operate this program in fiscal year 2002. But in the meantime,

we will work to secure agreement in this bill on its continuation.

THE WIC PROGRAM

The WIC program provides a very important safety net for atrisk pregnant, breastfeeding and post-partum women, infants and

young children. We are concerned that the funding provided in this

bill may not be sufficient.

158

While the bill fully funds the Administration’s request for the

WIC program, the request itself may be inadequate to meet the

need in fiscal year 2002.

The budget indicates that the Administration’s funding request

funds the fiscal year 2001 participation rate for fiscal year 2002.

But because the Administration’s budget itself projects an increase in the unemployment rate in fiscal year 2002, merely maintaining the fiscal year 2001 level for WIC may not be enough.

In addition, there are concerns that technical assumptions about

funds that may be available to the program in fiscal year 2002 may

be overly optimistic. These overly optimistic projections also put at

risk the Department’s ability to continue the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program for mothers and children, as well as the Senior

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.

During markup, the Committee adopted report language offered

by Representative Rosa DeLauro that expressed concern about the

level of WIC funding and indicated that ‘‘the Committee will monitor and review the need for additional WIC funding in advance of

conference on the FY 2002 bill.’’

We are pleased that the Committee adopted this language. We

will work to ensure that an adequate level of funding is provided

in the final FY 2002 bill for this essential program.

BIOFUELS

There is no doubt that one of the most significant problems facing the United States is energy independence. The Department of

Agriculture has conducted various successful research programs

over the years that demonstrate that ethanol, biodiesel, and other

biomass fuels can be effective alternatives for both consumers of

fuels, as well as an additional source of revenue for producers.

More than $3 billion has been invested in 55 ethanol production

facilities operating in 20 different states across the country.

The ethanol industry is responsible for more than 40,000 direct

and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in increased

household income annually, and more than $12.6 billion over the

next five years.

The ethanol industry directly and indirectly adds more than $6

billion to the American economy each year. The demand for grain

created by ethanol production increases net farm income more than

$12 billion annually.

Increases in ethanol production offer enormous potential for economic growth in small rural communities. USDA has estimated

that a 100 million gallon ethanol plant could create 2,250 local

jobs.

Noting that not one of the more than 100 recommendations in

the President’s National Energy Policy explicitly directs activity by

the Secretary of Agriculture, apart from the long history of the Department’s involvement in these activities, Congresswoman Marcy

Kaptur offered an amendment that would provide $500 million to

the Secretary, under existing authorities, for research, development, technical, and financial assistance programs for biofuels, including farmer-held fuel stock reserves. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated 18–31.

159

As we look for a comprehensive solution to our energy needs, the

role of biofuels cannot be ignored. We urge the Department to aggressively move forward using all authorities at its disposal to

maximize its support for biofuels.

DAVID OBEY.

MARCY KAPTUR.

Æ