- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 91
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-41
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002
_______
July 18, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kohl, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1191]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1191)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2002
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $73,897,995,000
Amount of 2001 appropriations acts to date............\1\ 76,673,187,000
Amount of estimates, 2002............................... 73,976,108,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
Under the appropriations provided in 2001........... 2,775,192,000
Under the estimates for 2002........................ 78,113,000
\1\ Includes $3,643,949,000 in emergency appropriations.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Summary of the Bill
Page
Overview and summary of the bill................................. 5
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 5
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary.......................................... 7
Executive operations............................................. 9
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................... 10
Common computing environment..................................... 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration............. 12
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments......... 12
Hazardous waste management....................................... 14
Departmental administration...................................... 14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.... 15
Office of Communications......................................... 16
Office of Inspector General...................................... 16
Office of the General Counsel.................................... 17
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics...................................................... 17
Economic Research Service........................................ 18
National Agricultural Statistics Service......................... 18
Agricultural Research Service.................................... 19
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service..... 41
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs....................................................... 53
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................... 54
Agricultural Marketing Service................................... 63
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.......... 67
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.................... 68
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................... 68
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services....................................................... 69
Farm Service Agency.............................................. 71
Risk Management Agency........................................... 77
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund.......................... 78
Commodity Credit Corporation fund................................ 79
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.................................................... 84
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 84
TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community
Development.................................................... 96
Rural Community Advancement Program.............................. 97
Rural Housing Service............................................ 102
Rural Business-Cooperative Service............................... 108
Rural Utilities Service.......................................... 111
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services....................................................... 115
Food and Nutrition Service....................................... 116
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service..................................... 130
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Food and Drug Administration..................................... 138
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission............................. 147
Farm Credit Administration....................................... 147
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 149
Program, project, and activity................................... 150
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of
the Senate..................................................... 150
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules
of the Senate.................................................. 151
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 151
Budgetary impact of bill......................................... 153
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Committee
2001 \1\ recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $33,249,900,000 $31,855,922,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 871,556,000 980,416,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,475,739,000 2,793,742,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 34,111,683,000 35,839,891,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,090,199,000 1,128,077,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,165,304,000 1,287,351,000
Title VII: General provisions..... 29,945,000 12,596,000
Title VIII:....................... -5,000 .................
Title X: Anti-dumping............. 39,912 .................
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 73,029,238,000 73,899,995,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554 and excludes
emergency appropriations.
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural economic
and community development activities, and telecommunications
and electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the
report.
All discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2001 shown
in this report reflect the 0.22 percent rescission pursuant to
Public Law 106-554 and have been rounded to the nearest
thousands of dollars.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
Government Performance and Results Act
Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program
activities and establish performance measures for use in
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the
difference they make in citizens' lives.
The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this
Committee.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $2,908,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 2,992,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,992,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $2,992,000. This amount is $84,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Environmentally preferable products.--The Secretary shall
work with the General Services Administration, the Department
of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other
appropriate agencies to maximize the purchases of
environmentally preferable products, as defined by Executive
Order 13101 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste
Prevention. Such products are not only useful in improving the
environment, but they can, when the product contains a
substantial amount of agri-based content, also open
considerable markets for farmers.
The Department should actively participate in joint task
forces and other multiagency entities in this area. It should
actively work to properly define standards for agri-based
content of products and work towards the development of such
environmentally preferable products.
Use of the Commodity Credit Corporation.--During fiscal
year 2001, funds were made available through the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) for a number of programs initiated by
either the current or previous administration. These programs
ranged from control of certain exotic pests to an international
school lunch pilot program. The Committee understands the need
for the Department to utilize CCC funds to meet unanticipated
needs, if authorized, and generally supports the actions taken
in this regard over the past year. Elsewhere in this report,
the Committee makes specific recommendations for initiatives
the Secretary should continue and, in certain cases, work with
the appropriate authorization committees to establish the
programs by law. In regard to programs which may be initiated
during fiscal year 2002 the Committee reminds the Secretary of
the requirements of section 720 of this Act on the
establishment of new programs under the Commodity Credit
Charter Act or other authorities.
Human capital management.--On January 17, 2001, the General
Accounting Office issued a report on human capital challenges
and their effect on an agency's ability best to perform its
mission in an effective, efficient, and economic manner. That
report included references to activities within the Department
of Agriculture. Therefore, the Committee encourages the
Secretary to continue comprehensive workforce planning and to
assist agency implementation of incentive and training
activities that are best suited to the end result of improved
effectiveness within Government and enhanced services to the
public.
Drought mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Current
conditions in the Pacific Northwest, as one example, have
resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling to within
only 20 to 30 percent of normal supply. The report of the
National Drought Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the
21st Century'', recommends that Congress pass a National
Drought Preparedness Act. Such an act would establish a
Federal/non-Federal partnership through a National Drought
Council responsible for implementing a national drought policy.
The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out the
recommendations of the National Drought Commission and
coordinate USDA mission areas to provide a response to drought-
stricken areas in as prompt and meaningful a way as possible.
Food security.--The Committee remains concerned by reports
of increased demand for hunger relief programs at the community
level and the ability of the Department to meet the nutrition
needs of all Americans. The Committee encourages the Secretary
to coordinate the work of the Research, Education, and
Economics mission area with that of the Domestic Food and
Nutrition Programs to better understand and provide adequate
response to this growing need. The Committee suggests that
guidelines for USDA grant programs that focus on nutrition
should reflect the need to address systemic failures and
critical gaps in the food delivery system. The Committee also
urges the Secretary, as part of this effort, to strengthen
community food security and increase support for local sales by
agricultural producers to consumers and school food service
authorities.
National Animal Disease Center.--The Committee provides
funding elsewhere in this bill for the National Animal Disease
Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for activities consistent with the
most efficient plan as identified by the Secretary. The
Committee agrees with the Secretary in a statement communicated
to the Committee on May 25, 2001, that there is an urgent need
to renovate and modernize the existing facilities and, further,
that these grossly debilitated and inadequate facilities, as
part of a high national priority for animal health programs,
must be modernized. The Committee is concerned by reports of
unsafe conditions which currently pose threats to USDA
personnel and others and therefore directs the Secretary to
take corrective actions regarding immediate facility needs, as
determined by the Secretary.
Nutrition studies and evaluations.--In developing plans for
using funds appropriated for studies and evaluations of
nutrition assistance programs, the Committee encourages the
Food and Nutrition Service to inform the Economic Research
Service of its priorities for projects to support program
objectives. The Committee also expects the Secretary to review
the allocation for all studies and evaluations resources to
avoid duplication and assure that high priority needs are met.
Administrative convergence.--The Secretary is expected to
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or
reduction of any administrative or information technology
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any
other agency of the Department.
Tahoe site restoration.--The Committee is aware of the
Secretary's authority under the Public Law 106-506 to provide
assistance to South Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency to develop and publish a plan for the
cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination (including MTBE). The
Secretary is urged to make such authorized assistance available
within existing funds to these agencies.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Chief Economist
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $7,446,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 7,648,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,648,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
recommends $7,648,000. This amount is $202,000 more than the
2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
The Committee encourages the Department to conduct a study
to determine the economic feasibility of a small-scale dry mill
ethanol production facility in New Jersey.
National Appeals Division
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $12,394,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 12,766,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,766,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
rural development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends
$12,766,000. This amount is $372,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $6,750,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 6,978,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,978,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee recommends $6,978,000. This amount is $228,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $10,029,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 10,261,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,261,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the
Department's information management and information technology
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery. The
Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational services are
also provided to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of
Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and
executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $10,261,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $232,000 more than
the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $39,912,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 59,369,000
Committee recommendation................................ 59,369,000
\1\ Excludes $19,457,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law
106-387.
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency,
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer
information sharing among agencies of the Department. The
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to maximize the value
of information technology acquisitions to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its
beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization
initiative has been working to restructure county field
offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends $59,369,000 for the Common
Computing Environment. This is $19,457,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Within this amount, $4,500,000 is provided for data storage
infrastructure hardware and software with heterogeneous
connectivity to all existing USDA information systems and
applications, and which enables remote mirroring for disaster
recovery, and for coordination with the Combined Administrative
Management System (CAMS).
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $5,160,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,335,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,335,000
Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction
and oversight of the Department's financial management
operations and systems. The Office is also responsible for the
management and operation of the National Finance Center. In
addition, the Office provides budget, accounting, and fiscal
services to the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff
offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of
Communications, and executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee recommends $5,335,000. This amount is $175,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $628,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 647,000
Committee recommendation................................ 647,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, equal
opportunity and civil rights programs, ethics, and other
general administrative functions. In addition, the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for
certain activities financed under the Department's working
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee recommends $647,000. This amount
is $19,000 more than the 2001 level and the same as the budget
request.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $182,345,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 187,581,000
Committee recommendation................................ 187,581,000
Rental payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
Building operations and maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain,
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1,
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW,
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
Strategic space plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a
plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-
priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the
operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in
Washington, DC. To implement this goal, a strategy for
efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured
headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been
proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious
problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the
inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities
and serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South
Building.
During fiscal year 1998, the Beltsville Office Facility was
completed. This facility was constructed with funds
appropriated to the Department and is located on Government-
owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. In fiscal year 1999, USDA
began operations at the Beltsville Office Facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the
Committee recommends $187,581,000. This amount is $5,236,000
more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget
request.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2001 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 budget Committee
2001 estimate request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments........................................... 125,266 130,266 130,266
Building Operations....................................... 31,136 31,372 31,372
Strategic Space Plan...................................... 25,943 25,943 25,943
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 182,345 187,581 187,581
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $15,665,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 15,665,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,665,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $15,665,000 for hazardous
materials management. This amount is the same as the 2001
appropriation and the budget request.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $35,931,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 37,079,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,079,000
\1\ Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106-
387.
Departmental administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, management improvement,
occupational safety and health management, real and personal
property management, procurement, contracting, motor vehicle
and aircraft management, supply management, civil rights and
equal opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged
businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in
the Department's program activities, emergency preparedness,
small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the
regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by
the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
Departmental Administration also provides administrative
support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an
independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates
contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as
a reimbursable activity.
Departmental administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, departmental administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $37,079,000. This amount is $1,148,000 more
than the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and the same as the
budget request.
outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $2,993,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 2,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,493,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with
demonstrated experience in providing education on other
agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary
education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,493,000. This
amount is $500,000 more than the 2001 level and the budget
request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $3,560,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 3,684,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,684,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,684,000. This amount is $124,000 more than the 2001 level
and the same as the budget request.
The Committee provides that not less than $2,283,000 may be
transferred to agencies funded by this Act to support
congressional relations' activities at the agency level. Within
30 days from the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the
allocation of these funds by USDA agency, along with an
explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of the funds.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $8,604,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 8,894,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,894,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations
representing America's food, fiber, and environmental
interests.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $8,894,000. This amount is $290,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $68,715,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 70,839,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,839,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities
of the Office of Inspector General which had previously been
carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $70,839,000. This is $2,124,000
more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget
request.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $31,012,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 32,627,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,627,000
\1\ Excludes $498,900 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106-
554.
The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the
Office of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law
office of the Department of Agriculture and performs all of the
legal work arising from the activities of the Department. The
General Counsel represents the Department in administrative
proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations
having the force and effect of law and in quasi-judicial
hearings held in connection with the administration of various
programs and acts. The office also serves as general counsel
for the Commodity Credit Corporation and the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal cases arising under
the programs of the Department for referral to the Department
of Justice.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $32,627,000. This amount is
$1,615,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the
budget request.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $555,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 573,000
Committee recommendation................................ 573,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $573,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the
2001 level and the same as the budget request.
The Committee directs the Secretary to review existing and
ongoing public and private research related to the induced
molting of laying hens, and carry out or support such further
research as may be appropriate, and report back to the
Committee by April 30, 2002. The research should advance
understanding of effective dietary alternatives to feed and
water withdrawal in connection with induced molting. The
research should also provide further knowledge about any
increased pathogen shed that may be associated with induced
molting and potential risk to human health, on the basis of
actual field research over one or more complete flock life
cycles.
Nutrition monitoring activities are vital to shaping
policies for food safety, child nutrition, food assistance, and
dietary guidance. While the Committee supports the process
underway to integrate the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by USDA, it is
concerned that USDA has failed to continue to conduct the CSFII
in 2000 and 2001 as the integration process continues. The
Committee directs USDA to conduct the CSFII to ensure that the
quality of dietary data collected is not diminished, and survey
methods capture statistically valid intakes of various
population groups, especially at-risk groups.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $66,891,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 67,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 67,200,000
\1\ Includes $998,000 transfer to ``Food and Nutrition Service, Food
Program Administration'' for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public
Law 106-387.
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
on rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by
the general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $67,200,000. This amount is $309,000 more
than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.
The amount recommended also includes $9,168,000 for USDA
food assistance program studies and evaluations.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $100,550,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 113,786,000
Committee recommendation................................ 113,786,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which was transferred from the
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in
fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics
programs. The census of agriculture is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices. The 1997 Census of Agriculture was released on
February 1, 1999. The next agricultural census will be
conducted beginning in January 2003 for the calendar year 2002.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $113,786,000. This
amount is $13,236,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the
same as the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation includes the $25,350,000
requested in the budget for the Census of Agriculture,
$10,383,000 more than the 2001 appropriation.
Agricultural Research Service
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $896,835,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 915,591,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,004,738,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the National Agricultural
Library which provides agricultural information and library
services through traditional library functions and modern
electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and
private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research
Service, the Committee recommends $1,004,738,000. This is
$107,903,000 more than the 2001 level and $89,147,000 more than
the budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes $180,000 of the
savings from project terminations proposed in the budget. These
savings are to be redirected to those research areas for which
increased funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee
does not provide funding for contingencies.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research
activities. The remaining increase in appropriations from the
fiscal year 2001 level is to be applied to mandatory pay and
related cost increases to prevent the further erosion of the
agency's capacity to maintain a viable research program at all
research locations.
The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the
purposes identified by Congress.
In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to
another without prior notification to and approval by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise
directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall implement
appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, and
activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Aerial application research.--The Committee is aware of the
significant and necessary role aerial application provides to
our nation's farmers and the importance of increasing aerial
application environmental safety. Aerial application is a
necessary crop protection tool in modern farming. Aerial
application permits large areas to be covered rapidly, thus
ensuring timely and effective applications of large farming
areas. The Committee notes the important research being
conducted at the ARS laboratory in College Station, TX, which
led to modifications of application systems to meet safety and
technology challenges in aerial application. The Committee
provides an increase of $600,000 over the fiscal year 2001
funding level for expanded ARS aerial application research at
the College Station, TX, research station.
Animal waste treatment research.--The Committee is aware of
the priority need for research to develop new treatments for
animal waste. In this regard, the agency's Florence, SC,
research laboratory has been making great strides to allow the
advancement of alternative technologies to address swine waste
which could eventually eliminate waste lagoons. The Committee
provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for these
investigations at the Florence, SC, research station.
Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC).--As a component
of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) integrated
information services, AWIC provides information about animal
welfare to researchers and others responsible for the care and
treatment of laboratory animals, as mandated under the 1985
Animal Welfare Act. The Committee provides an increase of
$400,000 to support increased activities of AWIC in fiscal year
2002.
Animal Vaccines.--USDA estimates that the annual monetary
loss from cattle and swine intestinal diseases is around
$500,000,000 in the United States alone. New technologies are
critically needed to mitigate the adverse impacts of intestinal
diseases on cattle, poultry and swine, and to avoid potential
economic disasters, such as the spread of foot and mouth
disease in Europe. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this joint research project
between ARS and the Universities of Connecticut and Missouri
aimed at developing and refining new methods for applied
vaccine delivery, early disease detection, and developing more
effective vaccines.
Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee provides
an increase of $220,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level in
program funding to support molecular biology and engineering
research at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station,
Kearneysville, WV.
In addition, the Committee is aware of certain facility
needs at the Kearneysville location and the agency is
instructed to address the more immediate requirements in fiscal
year 2002 and provide a report to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by January 1, 2002,
identifying long-term facility improvement needs.
Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems Project.--The
Committee provides $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to continue
the research consortium supporting the Appalachian Pasture-
Based Beef Systems project. Through a cooperative agreement,
consortium members, consisting of West Virginia University,
Virginia Tech, and ARS, will be able to provide critical
resources to Appalachian cattle farmers to ensure the future
economic viability of these producers, to enhance development
in Appalachia, and to protect the environment.
Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase
funds available for research on alternatives to pesticides and
improving postharvest technologies for apples.
Aquaculture research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research,
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition,
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research
Center at Stoneville, MS.
The Committee encourages all facilities to share research
results to benefit and enhance the Nation's aquaculture
industry.
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center (ACNC).--The Arkansas
Children's Nutrition Center is part of the Arkansas Children's
Hospital Research Institute and is one of six USDA-ARS Human
Nutrition Centers. The ACNC conducts research on diet and
dietary factors that optimize the nutrition and health of
children from conception through adolescence, and maximize
their health as adults, especially in later life. Controlled
human studies assessing metabolic, endocrinologic, and
immunologic functions are used to develop dietary strategies.
ACNC has achieved some very promising research breakthroughs.
Scientists at the Center recently patented research that found
whey and soy proteins helped prevent breast cancer, a major
cause of death among women. ACNC is working aggressively with
the soybean, rice, and wheat industries to enhance research
efforts in this program. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 from the level available in fiscal year 2001 for
expanded research on nutrition and health at the Arkansas
Children's Nutrition Center, located in Little Rock, AR.
Asian bird influenza.--The Committee remains concerned
about the recent outbreak of a lethal strain of avian influenza
in Southeast Asia. Under encouragement from the Committee, ARS
scientists at Athens, GA, provide technical assistance and
collaborate with other leading virologists and ornithologists
to develop and assess baseline data on Eurasian birds as an
influenza reservoir and their migration habits between
Southeast Asia and North America and their breeding grounds in
Alaska. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for ARS to collaborate with the University of Alaska
and the University of Georgia to develop further and assess
these baseline data, specifically through increasing the number
and diversity of wild bird samples obtained and analyzed.
Avian Pneumovirus.--The Committee notes the losses to
turkey producers due to the spread of avian pneumovirus and
continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for research
related to this disease.
Barley food health benefits research.--The Committee
supports the expansion of research on the health effects of
barley food products. Efforts have been initiated to create an
FDA-approved label defining foods that contain barley as low-
cholesterol. As part of those studies, human nutrition clinical
trials must be conducted. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for this research.
Barley stripe rust.--The Committee recognizes the important
research conducted at the Pullman, WA, ARS unit on barley
stripe rust. Barley stripe rust is a major threat to the
Pacific Northwest barley production. The Committee provides the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for research on barley stripe
rust.
Binational Agriculture Research and Development (BARD).--
BARD is a binational fund to promote and support agricultural
research and development projects of mutual benefit to the
United States and Israel. The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this joint research program.
Bioenergy and biofuels research.--The Committee recognizes
that in addition to enhanced energy security, development of
biobased products and bioenergy represent an additional source
of demand for agricultural products. The Committee provides
increased funding of $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
biofuels and bioenergy research to be carried out at Peoria,
IL; Wyndmoor, PA; Albany, CA; Lincoln, NE, St. Paul, MN; and
Madison, WI. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of
$1,500,000 to evaluate and develop plant species and management
practices adaptable to buffer strips and CRP lands for
sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct crop production systems at
El Reno, OK; Tifton, GA; Mandan, ND; University Park, PA; and
Corvallis, OR.
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.--There is
a need to develop a bioinformatics infrastructure that
facilitates transfer of genomics information on structural and
functional genomics from model plants to crop species. By
leveraging genomics information in model plants such as
``arabidopsis thaliana'', it will be possible to focus and
improve the efficiency of genomics research on crop species.
The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for fiscal year
2002 for ARS, in collaboration with New Mexico State University
and the National Center for Genome Resources, to establish a
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species. This research
will complement but not duplicate the cooperative program
currently carried out at the ARS Center for Bioinformatics and
the Cornell University Theory Center. The Institute will expand
and link existing genomic and genome database research from ARS
and the collaborating partners into an inter-institutional
platform for deploying genomic data from model plants to
discover, characterize, and manipulate agronomically important
genes of major crops, including soybeans, alfalfa, maize, and
cotton.
Biomass crop production.--The Committee provides an
increase of $900,000 over the amount requested for fiscal year
2002 for expanded research on biobased products and bioenergy
to initiate a cooperative project with South Dakota State
University on biomass co-product research. This project will
investigate the applicability of using a method of fiber
extrusion from ethanol production into high value feed for
cattle and conversion to increased ethanol production.
Biotechnology approaches to risk assessment.--The Committee
understands the need to provide science-based data on the long-
term ecological impacts of genetically-modified pest-protected
plants. Biotech approaches that prevent pollen or seedling
viability, establishment of buffer zones, management practices
or other new technologies should be employed to mitigate risk.
Research is necessary to develop data that will provide a basis
for regulation of genetically engineered crops, especially
those incorporating pest and herbicide resistance. The
Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 for fiscal year
2002. Funding in the amount of $600,000 is to be implemented at
each of the following ARS locations: West Lafayette, IN;
Ithaca, NY; Madison, WI; Beltsville, MD; and Albany, CA.
Biomedical materials in plants.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for ARS cooperative
research with the Biotechnology Foundation, Inc., to carry out
studies on tobacco and other plants as a medium to produce
vaccines and other biomedical products for the prevention of
human and animal diseases.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research
on both plants and animals at an increase of $300,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level.
Bovine genetics research.--As dairy farmers continue to
face low farm milk prices, efforts to improve efficiency and
maintain low costs of production become increasingly important.
One way to achieve this efficiency is to milk cows with
superior genetics. The Animal Improvement Program Laboratory
(AIPL) conducts research to discover, test, and implement
improved genetic evaluation techniques for economically
important traits of dairy cattle. Approximately 38,000 dairy
farmers throughout the United States participate in the data
collection program that AIPL uses to accumulate the data needed
for its evaluations. These evaluations are then shared with
farmers and breeders who benefit from the information. The
Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from fiscal year
2001 levels to enhance bovine genetics research at the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
Broiler production in the mid-south.--Reduced broiler
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee
provides an increase of $900,000 from the fiscal year 2001
funding level for the ARS Poultry Research Unit in Mississippi
to address critical research areas. These include reducing
ammonia levels in poultry litter, improving environmental
controls, and reducing mortality in broiler flocks.
Catfish health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and
parasites threaten the nation's catfish industry. Research is
urgently needed to identify disease vectors, modes of
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling these
diseases. The Committee provides an increase of $2,000,000 from
the fiscal year 2001 level for a comprehensive catfish health
research program to be conducted at the National Warmwater
Aquaculture Center. The Center already has a critical mass of
scientists and the physical capabilities to rapidly address the
disease issue. Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be
expanded to select for fish with disease and parasite
resistance. The increased funding will provide the additional
scientists required, including parasitologists, virologists,
fish pathologists, and disease epidemiologists.
Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The
Committee is aware of the significance of the research
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest
Technology and continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level
for research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing
risks to consumers.
Cereal crops research.--The Committee provides an
additional $900,000 from the level available in fiscal year
2001 for the ARS Northern Crops Research Laboratory at Fargo,
ND for expanded research on small grains and sunflowers. The
Committee continues to be concerned with the economic viability
of the small grains and sunflower industries as a result of
production and marketing problems faced by producers in recent
years. In addition, the Committee provides $250,000 for the
cereal crops research unit at Madison, WI.
Club wheat breeding.--The Committee provides continued
funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for the ARS Pacific
Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program. This program is
essential as growers seek to gain additional overseas markets.
Corn germplasm.--Contamination of corn by aflatoxin limits
corn production in the southern United States. Understanding
the corn genome and where the genes for resistance are located
on the genome will accelerate the plant breeding process
leading to resistant lines. The Committee provides an increase
of $750,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for ARS in
Stoneville, MS, to undertake research on the development of
corn plants resistant to aflatoxin.
Cotton genomics, breeding, and variety development.--
Accelerating the release of higher yielding cotton varieties
with improved fiber quality and pest resistance is imperative
for maintaining the economic viability of the U.S. cotton
industry. To become more competitive, U.S. cotton mills have
turned to ever-faster spinning and weaving machinery, requiring
higher quality cotton fibers than are currently being produced.
Improved cotton varieties by the private sector have placed
primary emphasis on value added traits, but they have not
resulted in a net increase in fiber yield nor improved fiber
quality. While cotton germplasm is available for improving
yield and quality, efforts must be accelerated to incorporate
this genetic material into agronomically-acceptable varieties
and to transfer into cotton lines resistance to nematodes and
other pests. An increase of $1,000,000 is provided from the
fiscal year 2001 level to incorporate an independent public
cotton breeding program into the cotton genomics and breeding
program conducted by ARS at the Stoneville, MS, Federal-State
Research and Extension Complex. This research effort will
accelerate releases of cotton germplasm and varieties with
improved yield, fiber quality, and reniform nematode
resistance.
Cotton ginning laboratories.--The Committee continues
funding at the fiscal year 2001 levels for ginning research at
the Stoneville, MS; Mesilla Park, NM; and Lubbock, TX,
laboratories.
Cotton value-added/quality research.--U.S. agriculture's
continued economic strength depends on efficient production and
value-added technology. The Committee urges ARS to continue to
place high priority on cotton textile processing research
conducted at New Orleans, LA, to improve quality, reduce
defects, and improve easy-care products. The Committee
continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for this
research.
Crop production and food processing.--The Committee
supports the existing collaborative effort between Purdue
University and the Agricultural Research Service on a genomic
project to identify critical steps in the development of
resistance to important pests of wheat. The Committee provides
an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a cooperative
agreement with Purdue University to expand this project into
improvements of the functional properties of soybeans, as well
as wheat, in conjunction with the University of Illinois and
ARS' National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research,
Peoria, IL.
Dairy forage research.--The Committee provides an increase
of $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the U.S. Dairy Forage
Research Center, Madison, WI. Of this increase $500,000 is
directed for integrated farming systems research, and $250,000
is directed to support Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Trial
System activities. Also, within this increase, $500,000 is
provided for ARS to conduct seasonal grazing research at the
Dairy Forage Research Center.
Disease resistance and alternative crops research.--The
Committee acknowledges the need for additional research on
disease resistance and alternative crops for coffee and cocoa.
The Agricultural Research Service has a productive program in
place that has already resulted in the formation of a unique
public/private partnership with the American Cocoa Research
Institute (ACRI) and individual companies within the U.S.
confectionery industry. This new scientific and technical
alliance has allowed USDA to share findings from private-sector
supported programs, as well as to develop educational and
technical farm level projects utilizing industry expertise. The
``Disease Resistance/Alternative Crop Research'' cocoa research
program has equally important implications for realizing
foreign policy goals in Central and South America as well as
economic benefits for West Africa. As a globally marketable
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally
beneficial choice for small farmers and may provide an
incentive to farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that
can provide stable long-term economic benefits. The cocoa
research initiative will focus on identifying genetic markers
for disease resistance, improving traditional breeding
techniques, disease mitigation, technology transfer, as well as
farmer training programs. Various aspects of this research can
be applied to domestic crops such as potatoes, soybeans,
cotton, and corn. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,850,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this important research. Of
this increase, $150,000 is for a cooperative program
administered in Wisconsin.
Emerging and exotic diseases.--The Committee notes the
increasing threat posed by emerging and exotic diseases to
livestock and crops throughout the United States. It is
extremely important to identify new pathogens, their geographic
origin, and to biologically characterize them. The Committee
provides an increase of $6,782,000 for fiscal year 2002. The
research will be conducted at ARS animal facilities; the plant
research will be carried out at Ft. Detrick, MD; Charleston,
SC; Fargo, ND; College Station, TX; and Raleigh, NC.
Fish diseases.--The Committee recognizes the need for the
development of safe and effective vaccines for the prevention
of diseases in catfish to increase productivity, fish
efficiency, and reproduction. Vaccinations, successful in other
animals, appear to be the best means of preventing diseases.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from fiscal year
2001 level for the development of vaccines to prevent fish
diseases at the ARS Auburn, AL, research laboratory.
Floriculture and nursery research.--The Committee provides
increased funding of $800,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level
for the ARS floriculture (environmental horticulture) and
nursery research program. Nursery and greenhouse products rank
third in the Nation. As the public demands more plants and
trees to help clean the air, prevent water runoff and soil
erosion, and improve water quality and conservation, the
nursery industry is playing an expanding and significant
environmental research role.
Formosan Termite Control.--The Committee provides
$6,000,000 to continue the ongoing Formosan termite eradication
and research program, ``Operation Full Stop,'' at the Southern
Regional Research Center.
Fruit fly.--The Committee provides continued funding at the
fiscal year 2001 level for the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for collaborative work
on developing efficacious and nontoxic methods to control
tephritid fruit flies and to continue expansion efforts
addressing multiple pests and treatments. For continuing the
work on the impact of quarantine and control techniques on non-
target organisms and the environment, the Committee recommends
the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2001.
In addition, the Committee continues ARS funding at the
fiscal year 2001 level to the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine
control of the papaya ringspot virus and to expand the
techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to other
papaya diseases and pests and to other crops such as taro,
ginger, and herbal plants. The Committee also continues ARS
funding to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources to coordinate a program to
induce nematode resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug
wilt disease resistance in commercial pineapple cultivars and
to apply the tools and knowledge developed to other tropical
plants of economic importance in Hawaii.
Fruit research.--The Committee is aware of the important
work carried out on fruit research at Wenatchee and Yakima in
the State of Washington. The Committee expects the Department
to continue to give increased attention to the work carried out
at these two facilities.
Genomics research.--The Committee is aware of the need to
develop more rapid and efficient methods to identify and
manipulate useful properties of genes and genome. Genomics and
biotechnology are critical to maximize crop production while
minimizing environmental degradation. The Committee provides an
increase of $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this research
to be carried out at Beltsville, MD; Clay Center, NE; Ithaca,
NY; and Stoneville, MS.
Grain legume plant pathologist position research.--The
Committee acknowledges the importance of a grain legume plant
pathologist position at Washington State University in Pullman,
WA, and continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level to
support this position. This position is required for research
on grain legumes and foliar diseases of dry peas, lentils, and
chickpeas.
Grape research.--The Committee acknowledges the importance
of a horticulturist position specializing in grape production
at the ARS station in Prosser, WA. The Committee recognizes
that the research horticulturist is an important link to the
research efforts conducted at the Northwest Center for Small
Fruits Research at the ARS Corvallis, OR, station. Recognizing
the importance of this position and the effect research has had
on grape production in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the
Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal year 2001
level.
Harbor Branch aquaculture research.--Competition for access
to the limited U.S. coastal land resources requires innovative
approaches to develop and expand marine aquaculture into new
environments. The objective is to design a cost-effective and
energy efficient solar aquaculture system capable of sustained
production of warm water species throughout the year in colder
climates. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for
fiscal year 2002 for collaborative research between ARS and the
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute for research on low-cost
energy efficient marine aquaculture systems in new
environments.
Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--The
Committee understands that Arkansas leads the nation in raising
hybrid striped bass and grass/Chinese carp. It produces 80
percent of the nation's baitfish and is the second leading
producer of catfish. The Aquaculture Center plays a significant
role in supporting those efforts. The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for an
additional scientist to strengthen this research program.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center to maintain the competitiveness of
U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue to support the
expansion of new crops and products, including those from
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Hides and leather research.--The Eastern Regional Research
Center in Wyndmoor, PA, is the only USDA facility conducting
research on hides and leather. The Committee recognizes the
importance of the Center's ongoing research to develop new
methods of tanning cattle hides produced in the country. The
research provides the hides and leather industry with a cost-
effective and environmentally safe tanning process which will
enhance U.S. producers' comptitiveness in world markets. The
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001 level to
support this important research.
Hops.--The Committee recognizes the difficulties in the
production of the U.S. hops industry with new and emerging
diseases, and encourages continued support and research
enhancement by ARS.
Improved forage livestock production.--The Committee
recognizes the limited research currently available on the
science and utilization of grasslands and its potential for
significantly improved forage-livestock production systems. The
Committee provides an increase of $1,750,000 for fiscal year
2002 to ARS for a cooperative project with the University of
Kentucky on tall fescue breeding and improvement efforts to
develop an enhanced national forage base.
IR-4 Minor Crop Pesticide Registration Program.--The
Committee recognizes the importance of the IR-4 project, which
produces research data for clearances for pest control products
on minor food and ornamental crops. The Committee notes that
this project is especially critical at this time in order to
meet the new requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act,
and to fully implement its reduced risk pest management
strategy for minor crops.
Irrigated cropping systems in the mid-south.--Irrigation in
the mid-south United States is essential for economically
sustainable crop production systems. The Committee provides an
increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for
research on irrigation, to be conducted by ARS, Stoneville, MS,
focusing on such issues as feedback to correct water amounts,
reducing plant stress, and ameliorating the field environment.
Late blight fungus.--The late blight fungus is quickly
developing into the most serious threat to potato production in
the United States. New chemical-resistant strains of late
blight have been detected in virtually every major potato
growing State. Late blight has resulted in millions of dollars
in crop losses in Maine and throughout the potato producing
States in the Eastern United States. The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for expanded ARS
research on potato late blight.
Livestock genome mapping initiative.--The U.S. agricultural
system now faces formidable challenges, such as water and soil
degradation, new pests and pathogens, and inaccessibility of
genetic resources resulting in increased genetic vulnerability
of livestock. Genomics and biotechnology are critical for
improving the efficiency of production, and the quality and
safety of food products from animals, improving the accuracy of
genetic selections, identifying and moving genes into livestock
populations, and identifying genes responsible for disease and
parasitic resistance in animals. The Committee supports this
initiative to create an ordered map of large insert DNA clones
covering the entire DNA in major species of food animals. The
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002
for ARS support of the initiative in conjunction with the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF), infecting
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001
level of funding for research on the development of vaccines
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation
with the ARS sheep station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State
University.
Medicinal Botanical Production and Processing.--The
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year
2001 level for USDA's ARS Appalachian Farming Systems Research
Center in Beaver, WV, to research, develop, and implement new
and improved techniques for the cultivation and production of
herbal crops as medicinal botanicals. This research is to be
conducted in collaboration with the College of West Virginia/
Mountain State University.
Methyl bromide.--The Committee supports funding to continue
research related to a replacement for methyl bromide. The
Committee expects the ARS to hold administrative overhead costs
to a minimum, to direct a significant portion of these funds to
field testing, and to direct technology transfer to land grant
institutions involved in research projects under this program.
Microbial genomics.--The Committee recognizes the
importance and significance of research to obtain the complete
genetic code for Anaplasma marginale and other microbial
pathogens, and provides an increase of $900,000 from the fiscal
year 2001 level for a joint microbial genomics initiative
between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at Pullman, WA,
and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX. Of the amount
provided, $600,000 is to be allocated to the Animal Disease
Research Unit at Pullman, WA, of which $100,000 is for a
cooperative agreement with Washington State University, and
$300,000 is to go to the Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX.
Emerging and food-borne diseases create significant food safety
and trade problems and further genomics research is needed to
develop new control methods.
Minor crop pests.--The Committee provides continued funding
at the fiscal year 2001 level for the University of Hawaii
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to develop
environmentally compatible methods to control pests and
diseases in small-scale tropical and subtropical agricultural
systems.
National Center for Agriculture Law.--The Agricultural Law
Center at Fayetteville, AR, provides nationally important
research and information on agricultural issues. The
Agricultural Research Service's National Agricultural Library
has had a cooperative program with the Center for the past
decade. The Committee provides an increase of $125,000 for
fiscal year 2002 in support of this program. Of the funding
available for this program, $100,000 is available for
agricultural law research at Drake University.
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.--The
Committee increases funding for the National Center for Cool
and Cold Water Aquaculture by $1,200,000 from the fiscal year
2001 level to allow the Center to make reasonable progress
toward becoming fully operational and making a beneficial
contribution to the success of aquaculture in America.
In addition to this increase, the Committee provides an
increase of $725,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to develop
and test improved rainbow trout strains and alternative grain-
based fish feeds through the ARS National Center for Cool and
Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown, WV, in cooperation with the
University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in
Hagerman, ID.
The Committee also provides an increase of $600,000 for
fiscal year 2002 to the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture for the Improvement in Aquaculture Systems
Environmental Compatibility and Economic Efficiency project.
The project will enhance the production efficiency and minimize
the environmental impact of aquaculture production systems. The
research will be conducted through a consortium, consisting of
the Center and the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute.
National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS).--The USDA oversees
the NPGS which assures the acquisition and preservation of
plant germplasm. Genetic resources are critical to the nation's
agriculture and provide the basis for the development of crop
varieties necessary to meet the changing circumstances and
needs of the future. The Committee recognizes the importance of
this research and provides an increase of $5,000,000 over the
fiscal year 2001 level.
National sclerotinia initiative.--The Committee is aware of
the significant crop losses incurred by producers because of
reduced yields and crop quality caused by sclerotinia. The
Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 for fiscal year
2002 for the sclerotinia initiative for expanded research to
control this devastating disease which seriously affects
broadleaf plants, including canola, sunflowers, soybeans,
edible beans, and lentils. This program will be coordinated
from the ARS research station at Fargo, ND.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee continues
funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for the National
Sedimentation Laboratory, including funding for studies on the
use of acoustics to characterize soils, determine moisture
content, and monitor crop growth. The Laboratory is expected to
continue its close relationship with the National Center for
Physical Acoustics in carrying out these research efforts.
The Committee also provides an additional $500,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level to the National Sedimentation Laboratory
to conduct research on sources and causes of water impairment
in the Yazoo River Basin and to seek economically feasible
``Best Management Practices'' for attaining new water quality
goals, commonly referenced as Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDL's), at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels.
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory.--The drought of 2000
resulted in $329,000,000 in losses to Alabama's row crop
producers who typically contribute more than $700,000,000 to
the State's economy. In order for row crop producers to remain
competitive, ways to reduce drought-related risks must be
addressed to increase production and producer's profitability.
The Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 for fiscal
year 2002 to the ARS Soil Dynamics Laboratory at Auburn, AL,
for increased studies in soil hydrology, weed ecology, and soil
physics.
National Soil Erosion Laboratory.--The Committee provides
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to the ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory, West
Lafayette, IN, for support of the Source Water Protection
Initiative, a watershed project affecting three States. The
goals of the project are to accelerate the adoption of pest
management practices in the watershed, the effects of pesticide
loading, and water quality. The ARS station will be responsible
for the design of the watershed scale monitoring and evaluation
program, determining sampling intervals, and analyzing
collected data.
Natural products.--The Committee provides an increase of
$750,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for the ARS to
continue its cooperative agreement with the National Center for
Natural Products Research in support of research on natural
products.
New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--ARS' New
England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory at Orono, ME,
conducts research to evaluate the impact of new cropping
systems and management practices on plant pathogens, nutrient
dynamics, soil properties, yield, and profitability. Research
is also conducted to optimize the recycling of manure-derived
nutrients while minimizing adverse environmental consequences
of manure applications to cropland. The Committee supports this
important research and provides an increase of $300,000 for
fiscal year 2002 for a soil physicist position at the ARS New
England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.
New uses of agricultural commodities.--The Committee
recognizes the need for expanded research efforts to accelerate
the development of biobased industries that use trees, crops,
agriculture, forest and aquatic resources to make commercial
products. Development of biobased products represents an
additional source of demand for agricultural products. The
Committee provides an increase of $4,000,000 over the fiscal
year 2001 level to develop biobased materials from agricultural
commodities and byproducts using biotechnology tools and other
integrated technologies. These programs will be carried out as
follows: Peoria, IL, $1,500,000; Wyndmoor, PA, $1,250,000; and
New Orleans, LA, $1,250,000.
Northern Grain Insect Laboratory.--The Committee provides
an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the Northern
Grain Insect Laboratory at Brookings, SD, for support of a
cropping system ecologist. This ARS laboratory conducts
research to develop sustainable production systems that enhance
environmental quality and provide health, safety, and
profitability for agricultural producers in the Great Plains.
Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory.--This ARS
research station conducts economically sustainable and
environmentally sound integrated crop and livestock management
systems for agricultural producers in the Northern Great
Plains. In this regard, the station cooperates with the
Hettinger Research and Extension Center in developing crop and
livestock management systems that will increase the value of
crops and animals produced in the region. The Committee
provides total funding of $3,221,800 for Northern Great Plains
Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, to support planned research in
fiscal year 2002, including support for a professional position
at the Hettinger Research and Extension Center.
Oat virus research.--The Committee recognizes the critical
need to control barley yellow dwarf virus and cereal yellow
dwarf virus, two viruses which are destructive pathogens of
oats. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal
year 2002 for a cooperative agreement with the University of
Illinois to conduct important genetic research on these viruses
to help prevent these diseases in major food crops.
Ornamental horticulture research.--Ornamental horticulture
in Tennessee and adjacent States faces challenges to its
profitability. These challenges include pests, pathogens, and
weeds; lack of environmentally-friendly production practices;
and the development of improved or new varieties of ornamental
crops. The Agricultural Research Service in cooperation with
the University of Tennessee can revitalize research in
ornamental horticulture, biocontrol, germplasm and plant
sciences in general to solve these problems for this region of
the country and improve the rural and suburban economies. The
Committee supports this initiative and provides an increase of
$600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for this research.
Pear thrips.--The Committee recognizes the value of
collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to
develop controls for pear thrips and provides $150,000 for
fiscal year 2002 to continue this important research.
Pecan disease research.--The ARS Fruit and Nut Research
Station at Byron, GA, has provided significant research
findings for the U.S. pecan industry. Additional funding is
required to support disease prevention and treatment. The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year
2001 levels to support these important research programs.
Phytoestrogens.--The Committee has provided the fiscal year
2001 level of funding for the Southern Regional Research Center
to continue cooperative studies of phytoestrogens in human
health and disease and their impact on human cells.
Phytoestrogens are natural constituents of the diet that have
been shown or thought to have beneficial health effects, such
as breast cancer prevention and cardiovascular fitness.
Successful research will result in a significant health value
being added to soy products, thus increasing their value as an
agricultural product.
Pierce's disease.--Pierce's disease and its vector, the
glassy-winged sharpshooter, continues to threaten the nation's
grape and wine industries, as well as growers of other
commodities. Because of this threat, citrus and nursery stock
growers are now faced with costly requirements for inspection
and treatment applications to control the spread of Pierce's
disease and its vector, the glassy-winged sharpshooter. The
Committee provides an increase of $3,500,000 for fiscal year
2002 to the ARS research center in Parlier, CA, to facilitate
urgently needed research, including field trials of materials,
biological control measures, and other approaches, such as
lures and physical barriers, to the movement and spread of the
insect.
Plum Pox research.--The Committee recognizes that the
discovery of plum pox in North America seriously threatens
stone fruit industry. The Committee maintains funding for
fiscal year 2002 at the fiscal year 2001 level of $775,000 for
plum pox research at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in
Kearneysville, WV, to build upon ongoing research at this
research facility which has produced a plum tree that has
proven resistant to the plum pox virus in field tests done in
Poland, Romania, and Spain during the last three growing
seasons.
The Committee also maintains funding at the fiscal year
2001 level for ARS research conducted at Frederick, MD, to
develop integrated disease control methods in collaboration
with Pennsylvania State University and Clemson University on
plum pox virus.
Potato breeding research.--The USDA research laboratory at
Aberdeen, ID, conducts an important and progressive potato
breeding program. Recent erosion in the laboratory's funding
and lack of scientific resources have limited ARS' capacity to
address important aspects of variety development research. The
Committee provides an additional $150,000 from the fiscal year
2001 levels to address this problem and to enhance the
laboratory's molecular biology programs.
Potato research.--The Committee acknowledges the importance
of potato research conducted at the Irrigated Agriculture
Research and Extension Center in Prosser, WA. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2001 funding level for potato
research at the Prosser, WA, station.
Program continuations.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 2002 at the same funding level
provided in fiscal year 2001: Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL;
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), Fairbanks, AK; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK;
Aflatoxin in Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Endophyte Research, Small
Farms, Booneville, AR; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine
Bluff, AR; Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institute, Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Ecology of Tamarix,
Albany, CA; Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position, Davis, CA;
Citrus & Horticultural Research, Fort Pierce, FL; Biological
Controls and Agriculture Research, Mosquito Trapping Research/
West Nile Virus, Gainesville, FL; Coffee and Cocoa Research,
Miami, FL; Asian Bird Influenza, Avian Pneumovirus, Poult
Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens, GA; Nematology
Research, Water Use Management Technology, Tifton, GA; U.S.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI; Risk
Assessment for BT Corn, Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Grain
Research, Manhattan, KS; New England Plant, Soil, and Water
Research Laboratory, Orono, ME; Barley Food Health Benefits
Research, Biomedical Materials in Plants, Poultry Disease,
Turfgrass Research, Beltsville, MD; Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin
for the Mid South, Waste Management Research, Mississippi
State, MS; National Sedimentation Laboratory (Acoustics and
Yazoo Basin), Oxford, MS; Natural Products, Oxford, MS; Small
Fruits Research, Poplarville, MS; Alternative Crops and Value-
Added Products, National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Red
Imported Fire Ants, Stoneville, MS; Soybean Cyst Nematode,
Stoneville, MS; Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville, MS;
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation, Columbia, MO; Soybean Genetics,
Columbia, MO; Watershed Research, Columbia, MO; Cotton Ginning
Research, Las Cruces, NM; Rangeland Resources Management, Las
Cruces, NM; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Animal Vaccines,
Greenport, NY; Northern Crops Research, Fargo, ND; Western
Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Viticulture Research, Corvallis, OR;
Conservation Research, Pendleton, OR; Pasture Systems &
Watershed Management, University Park, PA; U.S. Plant Stress
and Water Conservation Laboratory, Lubbock, TX; Bee Research,
Weslaco, TX, Logan UT; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser,
WA; Grain Legume Genetics Research, Pullman, WA; Malignant
Catarrhal Fever Virus, Pullman, WA; Root Diseases in Wheat and
Barley, Pullman, WA; Temperate Fruit Flies, Yakima, WA;
Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems Project, Beaver, WV;
Aquaculture Initiative for Mid-Atlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV;
Aquaculture Systems (Rainbow Trout), Leetown, WV; National
Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown, WV; Cereal
Crops Research, Madison, WI; Integrated Farming Systems,
Madison, WI; Floriculture & Nursery Crops, ARS Headquarters,
Washington, DC; Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research, ARS
Headquarters, Washington, DC; National Wheat & Barley Scab
Initiative, ARS Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Range and livestock research.--The Committee recognizes the
important animal research conducted at the Ft. Keogh Range and
Livestock Research Station, Miles City, MT. The research
benefits ranchers and the cattle industry, and emphasizes
ecologically and economically sustainable range animal
management systems that meet consumer needs. The Committee
provides an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 to the
ARS Ft. Keogh Range and Livestock Research Laboratory for
expanded research to address rangeland animal production/
environmental problems.
Red imported fire ants.--Infestations of red imported fire
ants are increasing in southern California, as well as in a
number of States in the Southeast and Southwest. Nationally,
damages caused by imported fire ants to agriculture, human
health, infrastructure, farm animals and wildlife are estimated
at several billion dollars each year. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to
expand research on effective control of imported fire ants
infestations conducted at the ARS Jamie Whitten Delta States
Research Center. This program is conducted by ARS in
cooperation with the National Center for Physical Acoustics and
the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.
Research to control invasive weeds and arthropods.--
Invasive weeds and other pests species such as hydrilla, yellow
starthistle, leafy spurge, and arthropods such as silverleaf
whitefly, Russian Wheat aphid and many others cost the United
States over $100,000,000,000 annually. Like weeds, new
arthropod pests appear in this country each year. The Committee
provides an increase of $5,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 for
this research initiative. These programs will be carried out as
follows: Pathogens for biological control--Stoneville, MS;
Weslaco, TX; Yakima, WA; research systematics and development
of new biological information--Beltsville, MD; Davis, CA; Ft.
Pierce, FL; Montpellier, FR, and Ft. Lauderdale, FL; integrated
weed management systems--Urbana, IL; Ithaca, NY; and Cheyenne,
WY.
Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the important
research carried out at the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research
Center in support of the American rice industry. Arkansas alone
produces 45 percent of America's rice and relies heavily on the
research results emanating from the Center. The Committee
provides an increase of $130,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
adequately support ongoing research at the Center.
Root diseases of wheat and barley.--The Committee provides
the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the ARS Root Disease and
Biological Control Research Unit located at Washington State
University in Pullman, WA.
Seafood waste.--While seafood is attractive now as an
alternate food source, the disposal of seafood waste continues
to be a national and international problem. Discarded fish
waste and its other uses could potentially provide an
additional source of revenue for seafood processors. The
Committee provides an increase of $900,000 for fiscal year 2002
for ARS to develop a program with the University of Alaska on
feedstuffs generated from materials usually wasted during
processing of seafoods.
Shellfish genetics research.--The Committee understands
that the West Coast has become the largest regional producer of
oysters in the United States with an annual production of 92
million pounds valued at $69,000,000. However, domestic
production does not meet national demands. The shellfish
industry requires a long-term genetic improvement research
program. Currently the industry cultivates ``wild'' shellfish
that commonly result in poor crop yields and high mortalities
due to genetically inferior stocks. ARS has established a
national aquaculture program with the goal of facilitating the
formation of a globally competitive and sustainable aquaculture
industry in the United States. However, these programs are
mainly focused on freshwater fish. The Committee provides
increased funding of $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 for ARS to
initiate a West Coast multi-state shellfish research program
that focuses on genetics, ecology and food quality. The
genetics component of this program is to be located at the
Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon.
Silverleaf whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known
as the sweetpotato whitefly, continues to cause millions of
dollars in crop damage in several States, including Hawaii. The
Committee recommends participation by all affected States in
the collaborative effort to control this pest.
Small farms.--The Committee expects the ARS to continue its
support for the South Central Family Farm Research Center at
Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than the 2001
level for continuation of agroforestry research in conjunction
with work at the University of Missouri. In addition, the
Committee provides $50,000 for a cooperative agreement related
to the alternative use of Shiitake mushrooms.
Small fruits research, Corvallis, OR.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of the Northwest Center for Small
Fruits Research to the long-term economic vitality of the small
fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest. The Committee
provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2001
funding level for the Center for program upgrades and
cooperative agreements.
Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of the USDA Small Fruits Research
Station in Poplarville, MS, and provides an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to expand the research
efforts of the station on ornamental and vegetable crops.
Soil-plant-nutrient research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research carried out in the ARS soil-plant-nutrient
research laboratory at Ft. Collins to enhance water and soil
quality with precision/conservation farming. This research will
lead to advanced farm management and disease control
technologies. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000
for fiscal year 2002 for the addition of a plant physiology
scientist and additional research support for this laboratory.
Sorghum research.--Over 7.7 million acres of sorghum are
grown in the United States with an estimated harvest of 470
million bushels. Resources invested in research and technology
development will be a major factor in determining the future
growth and competitiveness of the U.S. grain sorghum industry.
A strong grain sorghum research program benefits producers and
users of sorghum by enhancing production efficiency, quality,
and new uses. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000
from the level available in fiscal year 2001 for this important
crop, $80,000 of which should be provided in support of the
existing ARS grain sorghum project at Manhattan, KS.
Soybean genetics, MO.--The Committee provides an increase
of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for research
conducted by the ARS at Columbia, MO, for two additional
soybean geneticists to focus research on genetic improvement of
soybeans to increase productivity and value due to protein,
oil, and nutrition composition. One new position will be
located at Columbia and two positions will continue to be
located at and collaborate with the Danforth Plant Science
Center.
Subterranean termite.--The Committee provides funding at
the fiscal year 2001 level to continue termite research in
Hawaii to devise and test control methods that do not endanger
public health and environmental preservation goals.
Sugarbeet research.--The Committee acknowledges the need
for additional research on sugarbeet irrigation technologies
and basic research on the interactions between fertility,
genotype, irrigation and crop quality. The Committee provides
an increase of $600,000 for fiscal year 2002 for scientific
staffing at the USDA research station at Kimberly, ID.
Sugarcane research.--Sugarcane farmers have traditionally
burned cane in the field before transport to the mill to
achieve efficiency, a practice which is crucial to the survival
of the sugarcane industry. However, residue from burning is a
nuisance and potential hazard to nearby neighborhoods. The
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 to the ARS Research
Station in Houma, LA, to develop new sugarcane varieties that
can be harvested efficiently without burning, evaluate new
breeding lines more adaptable to ``green cane'' harvesting, and
examine aspects of bioenergy, new chemistries, and separator
technologies to find alternative products and uses of cane
biomass.
Sweet potato research.--Sweet potato is a high value crop
but it is attacked by numerous pests, including wireworms,
field crickets, and white grub. The Committee provides an
increase of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for ARS
Stoneville, MS, to conduct research on sweet potato and
vegetable insects in cooperation with Alcorn State University.
Tamarix research.--Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody invasive
plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming large
amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like willow
and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem in
Nevada, California, Texas, and other Western States. The
Committee is aware of the ARS' biocontrol field trials on China
beetles to eradicate tamarix and provides an increase of
$300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to accelerate research on tamarix
control using China beetles and to expand research on cheat
grass at the ARS research station in Reno, NV.
Temperate fruit flies.--The Committee recognizes the
importance and significance of research related to the
temperate fruit fly not only for the application to the pest's
primary target, cherries, but for the potential application to
other tree fruits. In addition, this research will prove
invaluable as the horticulture industry combats artificial
trade barriers established by foreign entities when exporting
Pacific Northwest fruit. The Committee continues fiscal year
2001 funding for research on temperate fruit flies at the ARS
station in Yakima, WA.
Tropical aquaculture research.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the Oceanic Institute of
Hawaii for continuation of the comprehensive research program
focused on feeds, nutrition, and global competitiveness of the
domestic aquaculture industry.
Trout genome mapping.--The Committee supports animal
genomics, the development of genetic and physical maps, along
with research on gene structure and function. Declining natural
fishery harvests and rapidly growing populations concerned with
healthy eating mean that, worldwide, aquaculture production
will need to increase some 300 percent by 2025 to meet
projected seafood demand. Investing in trout genome mapping is
a crucial investment strategy that will lead to the
identification of genes affecting production traits, improve
the accuracy of genetic selection for superior strains through
market-assisted selection, facilitate the genetic enhancement
of animal populations, and be useful for characterizing new,
potentially valuable germplasm populations. Genome mapping will
allow the American aquaculture industry to remain
internationally competitive. The Committee provides an increase
of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level to support Trout
Genome Mapping at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture in cooperation with West Virginia University.
Turfgrass research.--There is not presently a comprehensive
national system for collecting, storing and evaluating
turfgrass varieties and experimental selections in the United
States and Canada. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the ARS
Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) to establish, maintain, and
collect data for evaluation trials of turfgrass varieties and
experimental selections.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year
2001 level for the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research
Center. Of the amount provided, $300,000 is for the University
of Hawaii at Hilo to increase its capacity to complement the
research of the Center.
Varroa mite research.--The varroa mite is a major threat to
honey bees as well as to a host of agricultural plants that
depend on bees for their pollination. The Committee recognizes
the ongoing work carried out at the ARS Honey Bee Laboratory in
Baton Rouge, LA, to control the varroa and other parasitic
mites and provides an increase for fiscal year 2002 of $500,000
for this research.
Vegetable crops research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 for the ARS Vegetable Crops Research Unit
at Madison, WI.
Virus-free potato germplasm.--The Committee recognizes the
need for increased research to evaluate potatoes grown in
Northern climates, particularly in developing virus-free potato
germplasm. Virus-free potatoes will allow potato producers in
Alaska and other Northern States to increase export trade with
Pacific rim countries. The Committee provides an increase of
$750,000 for fiscal year 2002 for an ARS cooperative project
with the University of Alaska.
Viticulture research.--With the emerging importance of the
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee
provides $450,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the viticulture
research position at the University of Idaho Parma Research and
Extension Center, for research at the Center, and for
cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho
researchers for viticulture research. The Committee also
provides an increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2001
level to enhance viticulture research at the Northwest Center
for Small Fruit Research, of which $200,000 is to support
additional research at the Center, and $200,000 is to be
awarded competitively for collaborative research between the
University of Idaho, Washington State University, and Oregon
State University.
Waste management research.--The Agricultural Research
Service initiated a cooperative waste management program with
Western Kentucky University with emphasis on development of
environmentally-friendly management systems for waste
management from poultry farms and processing plants. The
Committee recognizes the importance of this program and
provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal year 2001
level for an ARS expanded joint research project with Western
Kentucky University to examine the use of chicken litter as a
fertilizer source for fescue pasture, as a nutrient source for
cattle, and other agricultural applications such as mushroom
culturing.
Watershed research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee includes
$325,000 in fiscal year 2002 funding for ARS for laboratory
analysis of water samples collected during implementation of,
and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research,
Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $74,037,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 30,462,000
Committee recommendation................................ 99,625,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and
Facilities, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$99,625,000. This is $25,588,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and $69,163,000 more than the budget request. The
Committee's specific recommendations are indicated in the
following table:
ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
State and facility 2001 2002 budget recommendation
enacted estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation 4,989 ........... ..............
and Western Cotton
Laboratory, Maricopa.........
California:
Western Human Nutrition ........... 5,000 5,000
Research Center, Davis...
Western Regional Research 4,889 3,800 2,000
Center, Albany...........
District of Columbia: U.S. 3,323 4,600 ..............
National Arboretum...........
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin 4,989 ........... 3,000
Agricultural Research Center.
Idaho: Advanced Genetics ........... ........... 500
Laboratory, Aberdeen.........
Illinois:
National Center for ........... 6,500 6,500
Agricultural Utilization
Research, Peoria.........
USDA greenhouse complex, 3,592 ........... ..............
Urbana...................
Iowa: National Animal Disease 8,980 ........... 40,000
Center, Ames.................
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing 3,492 ........... 3,000
Research Laboratory, Manhat-
tan..........................
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold 2,495 ........... 3,000
Water Aquaculture Research
Center, Orono................
Maryland:
Beltsville Agricultural 13,271 ........... 3,000
Research Center,
Beltsville...............
National Agricultural 1,766 1,800 ..............
Library, Beltsville......
Minnesota: Cereal Disease ........... ........... 300
Laboratory, St. Paul.........
Mississippi:
National Biological 4,989 ........... 8,400
Control Laboratory,
Stoneville...............
Mid South Horticultural ........... ........... 800
Laboratory, Poplarville..
Montana: Fort Keogh 5,288 ........... ..............
Laboratory, Miles City.......
New York: Plum Island Animal 6,985 3,762 3,000
Disease Center, Greenport....
New Mexico: Jornada ........... ........... 475
Experimental Range Management
Research Laboratory, Las
Cruces.......................
Oklahoma: Southern Plains ........... ........... 1,500
Range Research Station, Wood-
ward........................
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional ........... 5,000 3,000
Research Center, Philadelphia
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable ........... ........... 4,500
Laboratory, Charleston.......
South Dakota: Northern Grain ........... ........... 850
Insects Research Laboratory,
Brookings....................
Utah: Poisonous Plant 4,989 ........... 5,600
Laboratory, Logan............
West Virginia: National Center ........... ........... 2,200
for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture, Leetown.........
Wisconsin: Cereal Crops ........... ........... 3,000
Laboratory, Madison..........
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 74,037 30,462 99,625
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides funds for design of the Advanced
Genetics Laboratory, National Animal Disease Laboratory, Cereal
Disease Laboratory, Mid South Horticultural Laboratory,
Southern Plains Range Research Laboratory, and the Northern
Grain Insects Research Laboratory. Funds are also provided for
design and associated land acquisition costs of the Cereal
Crops Laboratory and land acquisition costs relating to the
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center for branch
facilities located at Franklin, Maine. Funds are provided for
design and construction of the Southern Plains Range Research
Laboratory. Of funds provided for the Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center, $900,000 may be used for
necessary design costs.
Funds are also provided to complete construction of the
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, National Biological
Control Laboratory, Agricultural Utilization Research Center,
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory,
and the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.
The funds provided for the Jornada Experimental Range
Management Research Laboratory are to complete the Headquarters
Building.
Additional funds are provided toward construction of the
Western Regional Research Center, Pacific Basin Agricultural
Research Center, Grain Marketing and Production Research
Center, National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center,
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Plum Island Animal
Disease Center, and Eastern Regional Research Center. Due to
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the
full amount required to complete construction of all projects.
The Committee is aware of opportunities in the area of
renewable resources, including forest products, floriculture,
and horticulture and directs the Secretary to submit a
feasibility study on the establishment of an ARS Center for
Renewable Resources at Jackson's Mill, WV, to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2002.
The Committee is aware of growing threats of vandalism and
other acts which might disrupt ongoing research at ARS
locations and potentially result in risks to property and
employee safety. The ARS should provide a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1,
2002, on facility security measures now in place and possible
improvements to ensure program integrity and personal safety.
The Committee is aware of the need for facilities adequate
to consolidate ARS scientists in Raleigh, North Carolina, and
directs the ARS to carry out a feasibility study to be
submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
Senate by March 1, 2002, on the location's modernization needs
including building size, costs, and a list of primary
facilities including, but not limited to, laboratory space,
greenhouses, and quarantine areas.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State
Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission is to
work with university partners to advance research, extension,
and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and
related environmental and human sciences to benefit people,
communities, and the Nation.
research and education activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $505,079,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 407,319,000
Committee recommendation................................ 542,580,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2)
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) and the
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of
1998. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture participates with State and other sources of
funding to encourage and assist the State institutions to
conduct agricultural research through the State agricultural
experiment stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and the territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the
1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University; by
colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other eligible
institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For research and education activities of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $542,580,000. This amount is $37,501,000 more than
the 2001 appropriation and $135,261,000 more than the budget
request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2001 2002 budget recommen-
appropriation dation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch act....... 180,148 180,148 180,148
Cooperative forestry research 21,884 21,884 21,884
(McIntire-Stennis)............
Payments to 1890 colleges and 32,604 32,604 32,604
Tuskegee University...........
Special research grants (Public
Law 89-106):
Advanced genetic 474 ........... 750
technologies (KY).........
Advanced spatial 998 ........... 998
technologies (MS).........
Aegilops cylindricum (WA).. 359 ........... 359
Aflatoxin (IL)............. 131 ........... ...........
Agricultural 131 ........... 131
diversification (HI)......
Agricultural diversity--Red 374 ........... 374
River Trade Corridor (MN,
ND).......................
Agricultural 424 ........... ...........
telecommunications (NY)...
Agriculture-based 349 ........... 349
industrial lubricants (IA)
Agriculture water usage 299 ........... 299
(GA)......................
Agroecology (MD)........... 284 ........... ...........
Air quality (TX)........... ............. ........... 800
Alliance for food 299 ........... 299
protection (GA, NE).......
Alternative crops (ND)..... 624 ........... ...........
Alternative crops for arid 100 ........... ...........
lands (TX)................
Alternative nutrient 190 ........... 190
management (VT)...........
Alternative salmon products 644 ........... 644
(AK)......................
Alternative uses for ............. ........... 450
tobacco (MD)..............
Animal science food safety 1,631 ........... 1,631
consortium (AR, IA, KS)...
Apple fire blight (MI, NY). 499 ........... 499
Aquaculture (AR)........... 237 ........... ...........
Aquaculture (FL)........... 445 ........... ...........
Aquaculture (LA)........... 329 ........... 329
Aquaculture (MS)........... 591 ........... 591
Aquaculture (NC)........... 299 ........... 299
Aquaculture (VA)........... 100 ........... 100
Aquaculture (ID, WA)....... 284 ........... 750
Aquaculture product and 748 ........... 748
marketing development (WV)
Armillaria root rot (MI)... ............. ........... 200
Asparagus technology and 225 ........... 325
production (WA)...........
Babcock Institute (WI)..... 599 ........... 599
Beef technology transfer 284 ........... 300
(MO)......................
Biobased technology (MI)... 284 ........... ...........
Bioinformatics (VA)........ 474 ........... ...........
Biomass-based energy 900 ........... 1,200
reserach (OK, MS).........
Biotechnology (NC)......... 284 ........... 383
Blocking anhydrous 247 ........... 247
methamphetamine production
(IA)......................
Bovine tuberculosis (MI)... 324 ........... 324
Brucellosis vaccine (MT)... 495 ........... 495
Center for animal health 113 ........... ...........
and productivity (PA).....
Center for Rural Studies 200 ........... 300
(VT)......................
Chesapeake Bay agroecology 175 ........... 350
(MD)......................
Chesapeake Bay aquaculture. 391 ........... ...........
Citrus canker (FL)......... 4,740 ........... ...........
Citrus tristeza............ 740 ........... ...........
Competitiveness of 679 ........... 679
agriculture products (WA).
Cool season legume research 328 ........... 328
(ID, WA)..................
Cranberry/blueberry (MA)... 175 ........... 175
Cranberry/blueberry disease 220 ........... 220
and breeding (NJ).........
Crop genomics (MS)......... ............. ........... 800
Crop integration and ............. ........... 250
production (SD)...........
Crop diversification (ND, ............. ........... 1,000
MO).......................
Dairy and meat goat 63 ........... 63
research (TX).............
Dairy farm profitability 284 ........... 300
(PA)......................
Delta rural revitalization 205 ........... 205
(MS)......................
Designing foods for health 562 ........... 862
(TX)......................
Diaprepes/root weevil (FL). 394 ........... ...........
Drought mitigation (NE).... 200 ........... 200
Ecosystems (AL)............ 499 ........... ...........
Efficient irrigation (NM, 1,185 ........... 1,185
TX).......................
Environmental biotechnology 190 ........... 190
(RI)......................
Environmental horticulture 284 ........... ...........
(FL)......................
Environmental research (NY) 399 ........... ...........
Environmental risk factors/ 227 ........... ...........
cancer (NY)...............
Environmentally-safe 245 ........... 245
products (VT).............
Exotic pest diseases (CA).. 1,247 ........... 1,500
Expanded wheat pasture (OK) 292 ........... 292
Farm injuries and illnesses 284 ........... ...........
(NC)......................
Feed barley for rangeland 692 ........... 850
cattle (MT)...............
Feedstock conversion (SD).. ............. ........... 700
Fish and shellfish 474 ........... ...........
technologies (VA).........
Floriculture (HI).......... 249 ........... 500
Food and Agriculture Policy 948 ........... 1,250
Research Institute (IA,
MO).......................
Food irradiation (IA)...... 225 ........... 225
Food Marketing Policy 494 ........... 494
Center (CT)...............
Food processing center (NE) 42 ........... 42
Food quality (AK).......... 349 ........... 349
Food safety (AL)........... 520 ........... 620
Food safety research 284 ........... ...........
consortium (NY)...........
Food safety risk assessment ............. ........... 1,000
(ND)......................
Food Systems Research Group 499 ........... 499
(WI)......................
Forages for advancing 374 ........... 374
livestock production (KY).
Forestry (AR).............. 522 ........... ...........
Fruit and vegetable market 347 ........... ...........
analysis (AZ, MO).........
Generic commodity 198 ........... ...........
promotions, research and
evaluation (NY)..........
Global change/ultraviolet 1,431 1,431 1,431
radiation.................
Grain sorghum (KS)......... 106 ........... 106
Grass seed cropping systems 422 ........... 422
for sustainable
agriculture (ID, OR, WA)..
Hoop barns (IA)............ ............. ........... 250
Human nutrition (IA)....... 472 ........... 472
Human nutrition (LA)....... 750 ........... 1,000
Human nutrition (NY)....... 621 ........... ...........
Hydroponic tomato 100 ........... ...........
production (OH)...........
Illinois/Missouri Alliance 1,239 ........... 1,239
for Biotechnology.........
Improved dairy management 397 ........... 397
practices (PA)............
Improved early detection of 198 ........... 198
crop disease (NC).........
Improved fruit practices 444 ........... 244
(MI)......................
Increasing shelf life of ............. ........... 800
agricultural commodities
(ID)......................
Infectious disease research 299 ........... 800
(CO)......................
Institute for Food Science 1,247 ........... 1,247
and Engineering (AR)......
Integrated production 180 ........... 180
systems (OK)..............
Intelligent quality sensor 142 ........... 450
for food safety (ND)......
International arid lands 494 ........... ...........
consortium................
Iowa Biotechnology 1,561 ........... 1,561
Consortium................
Livestock and dairy policy 569 ........... 569
(NY, TX)..................
Lowbush blueberry research 259 ........... 259
(ME)......................
Maple research (VT)........ 119 ........... 150
Meadowfoam (OR)............ 299 ........... 299
Michigan biotechnology 723 ........... ...........
consortium................
Midwest Advanced Food 461 ........... 461
Manufacturing Alliance....
Midwest agricultural 645 ........... 645
products (IA).............
Milk safety (PA)........... 374 ........... 750
Minor use animal drugs (IR- 549 549 735
4)........................
Molluscan shellfish (OR)... 399 ........... 399
Montana Sheep Institute.... ............. ........... 500
Multi-commodity research 363 ........... 363
(OR)......................
Multi-cropping strategies 127 ........... 127
for aquaculture (HI)......
National beef cattle 284 ........... ...........
genetic evaluation
consortium (NY)...........
National biological impact 253 253 253
assessment program........
Nematode resistance genetic 127 ........... 150
engineering (NM)..........
Nevada arid rangelands 299 ........... 500
initiative (NV)...........
New crop opportunities (AK) 495 ........... 495
New crop opportunities (KY) 723 ........... 750
Non-food uses of 64 ........... 64
agricultural products (NE)
Nursery, greenhouse, and 284 ........... ...........
turf specialities (AL)....
Oil resources from desert 175 ........... 200
plants (NM)...............
Organic waste utilization 100 ........... 100
(NM)......................
Ozone air quality (CA)..... ............. ........... 500
Pasture and forage research 249 ........... 249
(UT)......................
Peach tree short life (SC). 179 ........... 179
Peanut allergy reduction 499 ........... ...........
(AL)......................
Pest control alternatives 117 ........... 350
(SC)......................
Phytophthora root rot (NM). 138 ........... 138
Phytoremediation plant ............. ........... 350
research (OH).............
Pierce's disease (CA)...... 1,896 ........... 1,500
Plant, drought, and disease 249 ........... 249
resistance gene cataloging
(NM)......................
Potato research............ 1,447 ........... 1,600
Precision agriculture (KY). 748 ........... 748
Preharvest food safety (KS) 212 ........... 212
Preservation and processing 226 ........... 226
research (OK).............
Produce pricing (AZ)....... 76 ........... ...........
Protein utilization (IA)... 190 ........... 190
Rangeland ecosystems (NM).. 299 ........... 400
Red snapper research (AL).. 723 ........... ...........
Regional barley gene 587 ........... 950
mapping project...........
Regionalized implications 293 ........... 293
of farm programs (MO,TX)..
Rice modeling (AR)......... 295 ........... ...........
Ruminant nutrition ............. ........... 500
consortium (MT, ND, SD,
WY).......................
Rural Development Centers 522 522 600
(PA, IA, ND, MS, OR, LA)..
Rural Policies Research 820 ........... 820
Institute (NE, IA, MO)....
Russian wheat aphid (CO)... 249 ........... 400
Safe vegetable production 284 ........... ...........
(GA)......................
Satsuma orange research 474 ........... 500
(AL)......................
Sclerotina disease research 237 ........... ...........
(MN)......................
Seafood and aquaculture 304 ........... 304
harvesting, processing,
and marketing (MS)........
Seafood harvesting, 1,165 ........... 1,165
processing, and marketing
(AK)......................
Seafood safety (MA)........ 277 ........... 277
Small fruit research (OR, 324 ........... 400
WA, ID)...................
Soil and environmental ............. ........... 150
quality (DE)..............
Southwest consortium for 368 ........... 368
plant genetics & water re-
sources..................
Soybean cyst nematode (MO). 599 ........... 700
Soybean research (IL)...... ............. ........... 1,000
STEEP--water quality in 499 ........... 499
Pacific Northwest.........
Sustainable agriculture 392 ........... ...........
(CA)......................
Sustainable agriculture 444 ........... 444
(MI)......................
Sustainable agriculture and 100 ........... 125
natural resources (PA)....
Sustainable agriculture 59 ........... 59
systems (NE)..............
Sustainable beef supply 742 ........... 1,250
(MT)......................
Sustainable engineered ............. ........... 474
materials from renewable
resources (VA)............
Sustainable pest management 461 ........... 461
for dryland wheat (MT)....
Synthetic gene technology ............. ........... 210
(OH)......................
Swine waste management (NC) 499 ........... 400
Technological development 284 ........... ...........
of renewable resources
(MO)......................
Tillage, silviculture, 212 ........... 500
waste management (LA).....
Tomato wilt virus (GA)..... 249 ........... ...........
Tropical aquaculture (FL).. 198 ........... ...........
Tropical and subtropical 3,854 ........... 3,854
research/T STAR...........
Tri-state joint peanut ............. ........... 750
research (AL).............
Turkey carna virus (IN).... 200 ........... ...........
Value-added product 331 ........... 331
development from
agricultural resources
(MT)......................
Value-added products (IL).. 95 ........... ...........
Vidalia onions (GA)........ 249 ........... ...........
Viticulture consortium (NY, 1,497 ........... 2,000
CA, PA,)..................
Water conservation (KS).... 79 ........... 79
Weed control (ND).......... 435 ........... 435
Wetland plants (LA)........ 599 ........... 599
Wheat genetic research (KS) 260 ........... 260
Wheat sawfly research (MT). 331 ........... 631
Wood utilization (AK, OR, 5,773 ........... 5,786
MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID,
TN).......................
Wool research (TX, MT, WY). 299 ........... 299
----------------------------------------
Total, special \1\ 85,481 2,755 84,040
research grants.....
========================================
Improved pest control:
Emerging pests/critical 200 200 200
issues....................
Expert IPM decision support 177 177 177
system....................
Integrated pest management. 2,725 2,725 2,725
IR-4 minor crop pest 8,970 8,970 9,970
management................
Pest management 1,619 1,619 1,619
alternatives..............
----------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest 13,691 13,691 14,691
control.................
========================================
National Research Initiative 105,767 105,767 137,000
(NRI) Competitive Grants......
========================================
Animal health and disease (sec. 5,098 5,098 5,098
1433).........................
Alternative crops.............. 798 ........... 898
Critical Agricultural Materials 639 ........... 800
Act...........................
1994 Institutions research 998 998 998
program.......................
Institution challenge grants... 4,340 4,340 4,340
Graduate fellowships grants.... 2,993 2,993 2,993
Multicultural scholars program. 998 998 998
Hispanic education partnership 3,492 3,492 3,492
grants........................
Capacity building grants (1890 9,479 9,479 9,479
Institutions).................
Payments to the 1994 1,549 1,549 1,549
Institutions..................
Alaska Native-serving and 2,993 2,993 3,000
Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions grants...........
Secondary agriculture education 798 798 1,000
Sustainable agriculture 9,230 9,230 13,000
research and education/SARE...
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475) 3,991 3,991 4,000
Federal administration:
Agriculture development in 563 ........... 563
the American Pacific......
Agriculture waste 495 ........... 750
utilization (WV)..........
Agriculture water policy 365 ........... 365
(GA)......................
Alternative fuels 258 ........... 258
characterization
laboratory (ND)...........
Animal waste management 274 ........... 400
(OK)......................
Aquaculture (OH)........... ............. ........... 500
Biotechnology (MS)......... 590 ........... 850
Botanical research (UT).... ............. ........... 800
Center for Agricultural and 427 ........... 427
Rural Development (IA)....
Center for innovative food 759 ........... 759
technology (OH)...........
Center for North American 87 ........... 87
Studies (TX)..............
Climate change research 170 ........... ...........
(FL)......................
Cotton research (TX)....... 499 ........... 1,100
Data Information system.... 2,120 2,120 2,120
Feed efficiency (WV)....... ............. ........... 200
Geographic information 1,023 ........... 1,223
system....................
Germplasm development in 100 ........... ...........
forage grasses (OH).......
Livestock marketing 185 ........... 200
information center (CO)...
Mariculture (NC)........... 324 ........... 450
Mississippi Valley State 646 ........... 646
University................
National Center for Peanut 399 ........... 399
Competitiveness (GA)......
Office of Extramural 448 448 448
Programs..................
Pay costs and FERS......... 1,098 1,594 1,594
Peer panels................ 349 349 349
PM-10 air quality study 435 ........... ...........
(WA)......................
Precision agriculture/ 586 ........... ...........
Geospatial Training and
Application Center (AL)...
Precision agriculture/ 147 ........... 600
Tennessee Valley Research
and Extension Center (AL).
Salmon quality standards ............. ........... 150
(AK)......................
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, 4,168 ........... 4,300
MA, MS, SC, TX)...........
Sustainable agriculture 474 ........... ...........
development (OH)..........
Urban silviculture (NY).... 237 ........... ...........
Water quality (IL)......... 348 ........... 348
Water quality (ND)......... 394 ........... 425
Water pollutants (WV)...... ............. ........... 257
Wetland plants (WV)........ 142 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------
Total, Federal \1\ 18,108 4,511 20,568
administration......
========================================
Total, CSREES........ 505,079 407,319 542,580
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends
maintaining Hatch Act funding at the fiscal year 2001 level.
Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The
Committee recommends a total of $84,040,000. Specifics of
individual grant allowances are included in the table above.
Special items are discussed below.
The Committee is aware of the need for special research
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a
competitive basis.
The Committee directs the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on the feasibility of a
competitive grants program that would be limited to current
special research grant participants.
Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $591,000 provided for
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agriculture and
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville.
Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato
industry working group.
Wood utilization research.--The Committee recommends
$5,786,000 for wood utilization research in order to provide
fiscal year 2000 level of funding for each of the research
centers.
Aquaculture centers.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000,
an increase of $9,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level, to
support the regional aquaculture centers.
The Committee is aware of and supports yellow perch
aquaculture research efforts at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and
Environmental Research Institute. This research is done in
collaboration with the North Central Regional Aquaculture
Center.
Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and provides funding of $137,000,000 for the program, an
increase of $31,233,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level.
The Committee remains determined to see that quality
research and enhanced human resources development in the
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment.
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that 10
percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for a
USDA experimental program to stimulate competitive research
[USDA-EPSCoR].
Alternative crops.--The Committee recommends $898,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola, an increase of $299,000 from the fiscal year
2001 level.
Sustainable agriculture.--The Committee recommends
$13,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, an increase of
$3,770,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level.
Increased funds provided for sustainable agriculture
research and education should include, but in no way be limited
to, projects on organic agriculture. While organic production
practices are included under the umbrella of sustainable
agriculture, it is critical that funding increases be directed
also to research on broader sustainable agriculture production
systems and practices. The Committee also directs the
Department to allocate a portion of funding increases to on-
farm demonstration and producer-research projects.
Higher education.--The Committee recommends $14,823,000 for
higher education. The Committee provides $2,993,000 for
graduate fellowships; $4,340,000 for challenge grants; $998,000
for multicultural scholarships; $3,492,000 for grants for
Hispanic education partnership grants; and $3,000,000 for
Alaska native-serving and native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
The Committee notes that the Department's higher education
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully
in this program.
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions education grants.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds
as authorized.
Federal administration.--The Committee provides $20,568,000
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee
recommends $1,223,000, an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal
year 2001 level, for the Geographic Information System Program.
The Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made
available for program activities of entities in the same areas
as in 2001 on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected
that program management costs will be kept at a minimum and any
remaining funds will be distributed to the sites.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $7,100,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 7,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,100,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (30 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Beginning with 2001, income funds are also available for
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On
the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the
1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee recommends $7,100,000. This is the same as the 2001
level and the budget request.
extension activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $432,475,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 413,404,000
Committee recommendation................................ 434,038,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $434,038,000. This amount is $1,563,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and $20,634,000 more than the
budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the
fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2001 Fiscal year Committee
enacted 2002 budget recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 275,940 275,940 275,940
3(c).........................
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety............... 3,991 ........... 4,700
Food and nutrition 58,566 58,566 58,566
education................
Indian reservation agents. 1,996 1,996 1,996
Pest management........... 10,759 10,759 10,759
Rural development centers. 906 906 1,000
Sustainable agriculture... 3,792 3,792 4,500
Youth at risk............. 8,481 8,481 8,481
Youth farm safety 499 499 499
education and
certification............
Renewable Resources Extension 3,185 3,185 5,000
Act..........................
1890 colleges and Tuskegee 28,181 28,181 28,181
University...................
1890 facilities grants........ 12,173 12,173 13,500
Rural health and safety 2,622 ........... 2,622
education....................
Extension services at the 1994 3,273 3,273 3,273
institutions.................
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 414,363 407,751 419,017
=========================================
Federal administration and
special grants:
General administration.... 4,726 5,202 5,202
After-school program (CA). 398 ........... ..............
Ag in the Classroom....... 451 451 451
Avian conservation (PA)... ........... ........... 400
Beef producers improvement 197 ........... 197
(AR).....................
Botanical garden 237 ........... 237
initiative (IL)..........
Conservation technology 474 ........... 500
transfer (WI)............
Dairy education (IA)...... 237 ........... 237
Delta Teachers Academy.... 3,492 ........... 3,492
Diabetes detection, 924 ........... ..............
prevention (WA)..........
Extension specialist (MS). 100 ........... 100
Efficient irrigation (NM/ 1,896 ........... ..............
TX)......................
Family farm beef industry 1,317 ........... ..............
network (OH).............
Food Animal Residue 284 ........... ..............
Avoidance Database/FARAD.
Food Electronically and 167 ........... ..............
Effectively Distributed
(FEED) demonstration
project (OR).............
Food product development ........... ........... 350
(AK).....................
Health education ........... ........... 1,000
leadership (KY)..........
Income enhancement 245 ........... ..............
demonstration (OH).......
Integrated cow/calf 284 ........... ..............
management (IA)..........
Iowa vitality center...... ........... ........... 350
National Center for 195 ........... 195
Agriculture Safety (IA)..
Pilot technology transfer 163 ........... ..............
(WI).....................
Pilot technology transfer 325 ........... 325
(OK, MS).................
Potato pest management 190 ........... 200
(WI).....................
Range improvement (NM).... 197 ........... 300
Rural development (AK).... 617 ........... 650
Rural development (NM).... 279 ........... 335
Rural rehabilitation (GA). 245 ........... ..............
Urban horticulture (WI)... ........... ........... 500
Vocational agriculture 275 ........... ..............
(OK).....................
Wood biomass as an 197 ........... ..............
alternative farm product
(NY).....................
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal 18,112 5,653 15,021
administration.......
-----------------------------------------
Total, extension 432,475 413,404 434,038
activities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $3,500,000 for the
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the
National Easter Seal Society.
Pest management.--Included in the amount provided by the
Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is
continued funding at the fiscal year 2001 level for potato late
blight control, including $400,000 for early disease
identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and
late blight research activities in Maine.
Rural health and safety.--The Committee recommends
$2,622,000, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level, for rural
health and safety education. Included in this amount is
$2,190,000 for the ongoing rural health program in Mississippi
to train health care professionals to serve in rural areas, and
$432,000 for the ongoing rural health and outreach initiative
in Louisiana.
Conservation technology transfer.--The Committee expects
conservation technology transfer funds provided for Wisconsin
to be used exclusively to support the University of Wisconsin-
Extension, and University of Wisconsin-Madison ``Nutrient
Management Education and Implementation Program'' and the
``Discovery Farms Program,'' which is a component of the
Wisconsin Agricultural Stewardship Initiative (WASI).
Hoop barns.--The Committee is aware of emerging
alternatives for the housing of animals such as hoop barns
which may generate more humane treatment in livestock
production. The Committee encourages the Cooperative Extension
Service to provide information to farmers on these new
developments in order to make informed decisions regarding
production.
Potato pest management.--Within the funds provided for
potato pest management, consideration for funding is to be
given to the application for the pesticide use and risk
reduction program at the Center for Integrated Agricultural
Systems submitted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison to
provide information about alternatives to pesticides that are
at risk of losing their registration under implementation of
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
integrated activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $41,849,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 41,849,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,350,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Pesticide Impact Assessment Special
Research Grants and Smith Lever 3(d) programs previously funded
under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are
included under this account, as well as new integrated programs
to address issues such as pest management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For integrated activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $42,350,000. This amount is $501,000 more than the
2001 level and the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2001 2002 budget recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality................. 12,971 12,971 12,971
Food Safety................... 14,967 14,967 14,967
Pesticide Impact Assessment... 4,531 4,531 4,531
Crops at Risk from FQPA 1,497 1,497 1,497
Implementation...............
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program 4,889 4,889 4,889
for Major Food Crop Systems..
Methyl Bromide Transition 2,495 2,495 2,495
Program......................
Organic Transition Program.... 499 499 1,000
-----------------------------------------
Total, Integrated 41,849 41,849 42,350
Activities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic transition program.--The organic transition program
shall be administered by the Cooperative State, Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) in order to address
all issues that are applicable to the transition process to
certified organic production, including soil and crop
fertility; marketing; weed, insect, and other pest management;
and other issues.
Water quality.--The Committee expects a continuation of
funding at current levels for the Agricultural Systems for
Environmental Quality Program and the Management Systems
Evaluation Area Program. The Committee continues funding for
the Farm*A*Syst program at no less than the fiscal year 2001
level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $634,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 654,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $654,000. This is $20,000 more than the 2001 level and the
same as the budget request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
salaries and expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, APHIS
Appropriations User fees \1\ appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001................................... $444,584,000 $84,813,000 $529,397,000
Budget estimate, 2002.................................. 618,112,000 84,813,000 702,925,000
Committee recommendation............................... 517,941,000 84,813,000 602,754,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct
appropriation.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] was
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972,
under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect
the animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and disease exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural quarantine inspection.--User fees are
collected to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine
activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction
of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and animal health monitoring.--The Agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and disease management programs.--The Agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
Agency.
Animal care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and
horses as required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection
Acts. These activities include inspection of certain
establishments which handle animals intended for research,
exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.
Scientific and technical services.--The Agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals;
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered
products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of
$602,754,000. This is $73,357,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and $100,171,000 less than the budget request.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2001 2002 budget Committee
enacted request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine 38,884 47,254 47,254
inspection...............
User fees \1\............. 84,813 84,813 84,813
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, agricultural 123,697 132,067 132,067
quarantine inspection..
-----------------------------------------
Cattle ticks.............. 5,264 5,732 5,732
Foot-and-mouth disease.... 3,795 3,839 3,839
Import/export............. 7,010 8,132 8,132
Trade issues resolution 8,187 11,367 11,367
and management...........
Fruit fly exclusion and 32,538 56,018 36,818
detection................
Screwworm................. 30,308 30,557 30,557
Tropical bunt tick........ 406 415 415
-----------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease 211,205 248,127 228,927
exclusion..............
=========================================
Plant and animal health
monitoring:
Animal health monitoring 68,502 71,531 69,731
and surveillance.........
Animal and plant health 6,249 6,601 8,101
regulatory enforcement...
Emergency Management 2,990 3,044 3,544
System...................
Pest detection............ 6,714 6,844 6,844
-----------------------------------------
Total, plant and animal 84,455 88,020 88,220
health monitoring......
=========================================
Pest and disease management
programs:
Aquaculture............... 918 940 1,130
Biocontrol................ 8,300 8,759 8,759
Boll weevil............... 78,983 33,931 79,157
Brucellosis eradication... 9,921 8,450 9,800
Chronic wasting disease... ........... ........... 1,000
Emerging plant pests...... 3,525 99,492 28,577
Golden nematode........... 579 610 610
Gypsy moth................ 4,407 4,559 4,559
Imported fire ant......... 2,095 2,118 3,618
Johne's disease........... ........... ........... 3,000
Noxious weeds............. 1,122 1,130 1,380
Pink bollworm............. 1,545 1,616 2,000
Pseudorabies.............. 4,030 34,570 4,151
Scrapie eradication....... 3,017 21,019 3,119
Tuberculosis.............. 5,462 18,552 11,925
Wildlife services 36,700 54,456 44,246
operations...............
Witchweed................. 1,503 1,520 1,520
-----------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease 162,107 291,722 208,551
management.............
=========================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare............ 12,140 12,767 13,767
Horse protection.......... 397 415 415
-----------------------------------------
Total, animal care...... 12,537 13,182 14,182
=========================================
Scientific and technical
services:
Biotechnology/ 9,999 10,516 10,516
environmental protection.
Integrated systems 998 998 998
acquisition project......
Plant methods development 4,796 5,118 5,118
laboratories.............
Veterinary biologics...... 10,727 11,413 11,913
Veterinary diagnostics.... 17,476 18,278 18,278
Wildlife services methods 11,001 11,455 11,955
development..............
-----------------------------------------
Total, scientific and 54,997 57,778 58,778
technical services.....
=========================================
Contingency fund.............. 4,096 4,096 4,096
=========================================
Total, salaries and 529,397 702,925 602,754
expenses...............
=========================================
Recap (salaries and expenses):
Appropriated.............. 444,584 618,112 517,941
Agricultural quarantine 84,813 84,813 84,813
inspection user fees.....
-----------------------------------------
Total, salaries and 529,397 702,925 602,754
expenses...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
appropriation.
The Committee is unable to provide the full increases
requested in the President's budget under this account.
However, the Committee does provide limited increases for a
number of specific animal and plant health programs. The
Committee directs the Secretary to continue the use of
contingency funding from available Commodity Credit Corporation
monies, as it has in past fiscal years, to cover all needs as
identified in the President's budget, and any additional
emergencies as determined by the Secretary.
The Committee is aware of developing problems involving
growing pest threats in Washington State relating to abandoned
apple orchards, southern pine beetle infestations in Tennessee
which may pose sudden and serious fire hazards, and the
discovery of the Columbia Rootrot Nematode which may threaten
United States potato exports to Mexico and encourages the
agency to investigate these problems.
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act (Public Law 104-127) makes
amounts in excess of $100,000,000 in the agricultural
quarantine inspection (AQI) user fee account directly available
for program operations. Of amounts collected in the user fee
account, the first $100,000,000 are subject to appropriation.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $84,813,000 for
the AQI user fee account. The Department estimates that an
additional $145,000,000 will be collected and available as
provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law 104-127).
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $47,254,000 for the AQI appropriated account.
The Committee recommendation will support a total of 691 staff
years for the AQI appropriated account.
The Committee directs the agency to provide funding at no
less than the fiscal year 2001 level for agency inspectors at
the U.S./Mexican border at the San Diego ports of entry.
The Committee urges the Department to actively seek
procedural and/or treatment methods that allow shipment of
untreated fruit grown in Hawaii to cold-weather states during
winter months without jeopardizing pest introductions to
mainland agriculture.
The Committee provides an increase of $4,280,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for fruit fly exclusion and detection
activities, of which $4,000,000 is directed for fruit fly,
including olive fruit fly, trapping and related activities in
California. In addition, the agency should continue to use
Commodity Credit Corporation funds for the fruit fly exclusion
and detection program, as necessary, as it has in past years.
The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo in Hawaiian
airports and directs the agency to provide not less than the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding for sufficient staff-year
equivalents of agricultural quarantine inspectors, operating
funds, and inspection equipment at Hawaii's direct departure
and interline airports.
The Committee also encourages the agency to aggressively
identify and evaluate flexible hiring staff deployment
arrangements to provide services cost effectively when needed
by agricultural shippers.
The Committee is further interested in APHIS's activities
regarding the acquisition and deployment of commercially
available, state-of-the-art inspection technology and equipment
at key points of entry, such as Hawaii, for screening
passengers' luggage for banned agricultural products and
reducing the introduction of dangerous pests and diseases into
the United States.
Plant and animal health monitoring.--The Committee provides
an increase of $1,852,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for
the animal and plant health regulatory enforcement program.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for a cooperative agreement with Murray State
University, Breathitt Veterinary Center, Hopkinsville,
Kentucky, to determine the impact on animal health from common
agricultural chemical usage.
The Committee provides an increase of $554,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the emergency management systems
program so the agency can respond to crises that threaten the
economic health of the animal industry.
The Committee provides an increase of $130,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the pest detection program.
The Committee provides an increase of $1,229,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the animal health monitoring and
surveillance (AHMS) program. The total amount provided includes
a reduction of $2,500,000 for Johne's Disease, which appears as
a new program under pest and disease management. Within the
amount provided for AHMS, the Committee includes the fiscal
year 2001 funding level for National Farm Animal Identification
Project for dairy cattle, to be coordinated with the Holstein
Association. In addition, the Committee includes an increase of
$500,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Animal
Health Consortium for a pilot project to aid in creating a
universal identification and database retrieval system for
tracking the movement of animal and animal-based food products.
The Committee urges APHIS and the Wisconsin Animal Health
Consortium to work in concert with the National Farm Animal
Identification Project to ensure that program duplication does
not occur. In addition, the Committee provides $200,000 to
develop a bio-security demonstration and outreach program in
cooperation with the Vermont Department of Agriculture and the
University of Vermont College of Agriculture.
The Committee provides an increase of $1,852,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for animal and plant health
regulatory enforcement. The Committee remains concerned about
press accounts of inhumane treatment of animals and reports
that inadequate enforcement of animal welfare regulations has
led to repeat violations and continuing mistreatment of
animals. Within the increase provided for regulatory
enforcement in fiscal year 2002, $1,500,000 is directed for
enforcement of animal welfare regulations and the Committee
requests the agency provide a report on animal welfare
violations and related enforcement responses by March 1, 2002.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2001
level for enforcement of the Commercial Transportation of
Equine for Slaughter Act.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for the national poultry improvement plan [NPIP].
Pest and disease management.--The Committee continues its
concern regarding the serious threat to pastures and watersheds
resulting from the introduction of alien weed pests into
Hawaii. The Committee again directs the agency to work with the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources and
Conservation Service to develop an integrated approach,
including environmentally-safe biological controls, for
eradicating these pests.
The Committee provides $1,130,000 for the aquaculture
program, including an increase of $190,000 more than the fiscal
year 2001 funding level to continue the telemetry and
population dynamics studies on depredating species of wildlife
in the Southeast. This funding is necessary to develop methods
to help farmers manage populations of fish-eating birds
residing in the Mid-south area that continuously prey on farm-
raised catfish.
Boll weevil.--The Committee provides $174,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding to continue the Boll Weevil
Eradication Program. This funding will provide the active
eradication zone areas with a 30 percent cost share and for
possible exceptions to address special funding requirements
arising from extraordinary circumstances in some States.
The Committee urges the agency to continue funding for the
geographic information system development at the fiscal year
2001 funding level so that the economic entomological
efficiency of the boll weevil eradication program can continue.
Brucellosis eradication.--The Committee provides the fiscal
year 2001 funding level of $750,000 for the State of Montana to
protect the State's brucellosis-free status and for the
operation of the bison quarantine facility and the testing of
bison which surround Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee also provides funding at the 2001 fiscal year
level of funding for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency
Brucellosis Committee [GYIBC] and encourages the coordination
of Federal, State, and private actions aimed at eliminating
brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Of
this amount, $200,000 is allocated to the State chairing the
GYIBC. The remainder shall be equally divided between the other
two States.
Chronic wasting disease.--The Committee provides $1,000,000
to implement a program under pest and disease management for
chronic wasting disease.
Emerging plant pests.--In addition to funds made available
through the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Committee
provides an increase of $25,052,000 from the fiscal year 2001
level for emerging plant pests. Within this total are provided
funds in the amount of $2,117,000 for plum pox; $7,242,000 for
Pierces disease; $6,600,000 for the Asian long-horned beetle
program in Illinois and New York, of which no less than
$1,500,000 shall be for activities in the area of Chicago,
Illinois; $5,000,000 for citrus canker; and $4,000,000 for
Mormon crickets and grasshoppers in Utah and other States. The
Committee expects that funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation will be made available for other activities
relating to these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2002 as
may be necessary.
The Committee directs the agency to provide funding through
a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Food
and Agriculture using either appropriated funds or funds made
available through the Commodity Credit Corporation for
containment of Pierces Disease.
Imported fire ant.--The Committee provides an increase of
$1,523,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the
shared responsibility with the States to conduct surveys,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement responsibilities
affiliated with the fire ant quarantine of nursery and
greenhouse plants. The agency is also directed to assist in the
demonstration of fire ant control methods on field locations in
Mississippi, Arkansas, California, Tennessee, and other States.
Noxious weeds.--The Committee continues the demonstration
project on kudzu at the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
The Committee also provides $250,000, in association with
the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the availability
and distribution of biological control organisms used in an
Integrated Weed Management system.
The Committee encourages the agency to continue working
with the State of Texas regarding orobanche ramosa at the
fiscal year 2001 funding level.
Pink bollworm.--The Committee provides an increase of
$455,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for pink
bollworm eradication activities in support of sterile fruit fly
release in the San Joaquin Valley and in Texas and New Mexico.
Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides an increase of
$6,463,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level to maintain
current staffing levels and related survey and eradication
activities. Within the additional funding provided, the
Committee directs the agency to address bovine tuberculosis in
Michigan.
The Committee is aware of concerns by producers of domestic
reindeer that bovine tuberculosis tests are inaccurately
reporting positive results and causing unnecessary losses to
producers. The Committee requests the agency to examine the
testing protocols used in this context to determine the
accuracy and reliability of these tests. The agency is expected
to report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
Senate by March 1, 2002 on this evaluation.
Wildlife services operations.--The Committee provides an
increase of $240,000 for continued Wildlife Services cattail
management and blackbird control activities in North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Louisiana, and for completion of an
environmental impact statement necessary for a baiting program
scheduled to begin in March of 2002.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for wildlife services predator
control activities. Of the total provided, no less than
$1,000,000 shall be available to the Tri-state predator control
program for livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Due to the increase in federally listed endangered species, the
State's operations account for Wildlife Services has suffered
financially.
Pursuant to House Report 106-619, the agency issued a
report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
Senate on problems related to wolf populations in the United
States. That report revealed a disproportionate share of APHIS
funding in States of the Upper Midwest in relation to the size
of wolf populations in that region. The agency is directed to
evaluate the distribution of APHIS funds for wolf depredation
activities in all States and report to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by January 1, 2002 of
actions taken to allocate funding for these activities in a way
that best responds to the needs of all States.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2001 level of funding for a cooperative agreement with the
University of Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife
Services Operations in the State of Georgia to address the
fluctuations in game bird and predator species resulting from
recent changes in land use throughout the southeastern United
States.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the operation of the
State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site
coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and
the American Pacific. The Committee also continues funding of
$500,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate
and operate a comprehensive brown tree snake prevention and
detection program for Hawaii. The total amount for these
activities is the same as that provided for fiscal year 2001.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2001 funding level to maintain the Wildlife Services Office in
Vermont.
The Committee provides $300,000 for coyote control program
in West Virginia, where predators have been a major obstacle to
sheep production in that State.
The Committee provides $4,600,000 for rabies control
activities and directs the Secretary to use funds from the CCC,
as necessary, for additional control activities. Of the amount
provided for rabies control, no less than $1,300,000 shall be
for operations in West Virginia. In addition, no less than the
level provided for rabies control in fiscal year 2001 shall be
available to the States of Vermont and Texas. The agency shall
also provide $500,000 to assist rabies control activities in
Wyoming.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for wildlife service operations
with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to
meet the growing demands of controlling predatory, nuisance,
and diseased animals.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001
level of funding for the management of beavers in Mississippi.
The Committee commends the agency's assistance in cooperative
relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce the
cropland and forest damages caused by the beaver population.
The Committee also provides $250,000 for the establishment of a
cost sharing beaver control program with interested parish
governments in the State of Louisiana.
The Committee includes $100,000 for the improvement of
wildlife services facilities near Stuttgart, Arkansas.
The Committee notes that APHIS was instructed in fiscal
year 2001 to begin a pilot program within its wildlife services
division to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-lethal methods
to control predating species. The agency should provide
information to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
the Senate as early as possible on the status of that pilot,
including a plan by which the objectives of the pilot can be
met within the context of ongoing programs.
Animal Care.--The Committee provides an increase of
$1,627,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for the
Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
The Committee is seriously concerned by press reports of
inhumane animal treatment in regard to livestock production and
slaughter and other activities under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture. The Committee provides increases in
this and other accounts to enhance humane treatment of animals.
During consideration of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriations bill, an amendment was adopted to increase
funding for animal welfare inspections, enforcement, and
research for improved treatment of animals. The Secretary is
encouraged to use any additional funds made available during
fiscal year 2001 for these activities in order to increase
program effectiveness as quickly as possible. The Secretary is
also reminded of the request for information on this subject
which was included in Senate Report 107-33.
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the
President's budget.
Scientific and technical services.--The Committee provides
an increase of $517,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to meet ongoing demands for biotechnology permits/
notifications, petitions for deregulation, and licensing of
international activities. An increase of $1,186,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding is provided for the
veterinary biologics program, which is an amount $500,000 above
the level proposed in the budget.
It is the view of the Committee that America's farmers,
ranchers and veterinarians should have available to them the
widest possible range of tools to prevent and control animal
disease. The Committee is concerned that USDA's Center for
Veterinary Biologics is losing valuable personnel necessary to
review and approve in a timely manner veterinary biologics,
including vaccines, to serve this purpose. To ensure prompt and
appropriate review and approval of important veterinary
biologics, including vaccines, the Committee provides an
increase to the Center for Veterinary Biologics and encourages
the Department to fully support the Center's activities in
fiscal year 2002. In addition, the Committee also supports
efforts between USDA's Center for Veterinary Biologics and the
animal health products industry to establish performance goals
for the review and approval of veterinary biologics.
The Committee provides an increase of $802,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the veterinary
diagnostics program so that ongoing testing methods can be
replaced by more modern technology.
The Committee provides an increase of $954,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for wildlife services methods
development, which is an amount $500,000 above the level
proposed in the budget. Of this increase, $50,000 shall be
directed for work at the Monell Center in Pennsylvania for
laboratory analysis of the chemo-sensory effectiveness of
repellents used to reduce harm caused by deer and other
animals. The remaining program increase beyond pay costs is
directed for development of non-lethal predator control methods
at the National Wildlife Research Center.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2001
level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center for rodent control only in active agricultural
areas.
Projects identified in Senate Report 106-288 and Conference
Report 106-948 that were directed to be funded by the Committee
for fiscal year 2001 are not funded for fiscal year 2002 unless
specifically mentioned herein.
In complying with the Committee's directives, APHIS is
expected not to redirect support for programs and activities
without prior notification to and approval by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise
directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service shall
implement appropriations by programs, projects, and activities
as specified by the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified
reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act
are to be implemented in accordance with the definitions
contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' section of
this report.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $9,848,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,189,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,189,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2001 and budget request levels:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2002 budget Committee
2001 enacted request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and 1,996 1,996 1,996
facilities repair,
alterations, and
preventative maintenance...
Plum Island, NY............. 3,193 3,193 3,193
Quarantine and seed 4,659 ............ ..............
facilities, AK.............
-------------------------------------------
Total, Buildings and 9,848 5,189 5,189
Facilities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $5,189,000. This amount is $4,659,000 less than the 2001
level and the same as the budget request.
Agricultural Marketing Service
marketing services
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $65,191,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 71,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,430,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the
Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities,
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C.
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s);
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this Agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading,
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation
services, and market protection and promotion.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$71,430,000. This amount is $6,239,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and the same as the budget request.
The Committee provides $14,259,000, the full amount
requested, for the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
to collect reliable, scientific-based pesticide residue data
that benefits consumers, food processors, crop protection,
pesticide producers, and farmers. The PDP is of particular
importance since the passage of the Food Quality Protection
Act, which requires thorough re-evaluation of agricultural
pesticides and tolerances for uses on individual crops. The PDP
is an effective tool to maintain the availability of critical
products which allow the production of safe and affordable
foods.
The Committee provides $5,980,000 for costs associated with
implementing the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of
1999.
The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and
expects the Department again to give full consideration to
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program,
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should
coordinate with other regional marketing entities such as the
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation and the Lower Kuskokwim
Economic Development Council.
The amount provided also includes $6,234,000 for the
microbiological data program so that baselines may be
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested
parties.
The Committee is aware of the unique factors that affect
dairy production in Alaska. Because of these factors, only 51
percent of Alaska's dairy needs can be produced in-State.
Further, because of the perishable nature of milk and the cost
to ship it, alternatives to increase milk production at
Alaska's existing State-owned facility, Matanuska Maid Dairy,
must be sought. Therefore, the Committee expects AMS, working
with other USDA agencies, to continue its assistance to the
State of Alaska in addressing this unique problem.
The Committee is aware of the continuing disastrous
economic situation being faced by the cranberry industry.
Cranberry growers are struggling with continuing low prices for
fruit well below the cost of production. Funding provided last
year as part of the Crop Risk Protection Act and the fiscal
year 2001 Conference Report for commodity purchases of
cranberries has been helpful but has not been fully implemented
by the Department. Furthermore, far less than the amount
required in the specific language of the fiscal year 2001
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act has been
purchased in the form of fruit concentrate and frozen fruit.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to complete the
purchases as required in those acts and provide the U.S. Senate
and House of Representatives Committees on Appropriations with
a report by March 1, 2002.
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2001........................................ ($60,596,000)
Budget limitation, 2002................................. (60,596,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (60,596,000)
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing tobacco, cotton, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores
Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are
designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in
the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $60,596,000.
This amount is the same as the 2001 funding level and the
budget request.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply
(section 32)
marketing agreements and orders
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $13,438,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 13,874,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,874,000
Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2000-2002:
SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2000-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------
2000 actual 2001 estimate 2002 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts).......... $5,735,557,955 $5,738,448,921 $6,139,942,369
Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106- ................ 200,000,000 ................
224)...............................................
Less Rescission..................................... -15,000 .................. ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service.......................... -4,935,199,000 -5,127,579,000 -5,340,708,000
Commerce Department................................. -69,920,523 -72,827,819 -79,125,978
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................. -5,005,119,523 -5,200,406,819 -5,419,833,978
=======================================================
Budget Authority........................................ 730,423,432 738,042,102 720,108,391
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year............ 112,630,114 241,269,707 218,630,609
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations.................... 50,355,227 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation................................ 893,408,773 979,311,809 938,739,000
=======================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Purchases....................... 399,999,997 400,000,000 400,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities................ 500,000 1,000,000 ................
Lamb Grading and Certification Support.......... 0 1,000,000 ................
Emergency Surplus Removal....................... 200,214,947 68,589,200 ................
Diversion Payments.............................. 30,777,658 10,250,000 ................
Disaster Relief................................. 0 0 ................
Specialty Crop Purchases........................ 0 200,000,000 ................
Estimated Future Purchases...................... 0 56,800,000 215,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement.................. 631,492,602 737,639,200 615,000,000
=======================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Service...................... 8,405,567 9,604,000 9,865,000
Marketing, Agreements, and Orders............... 12,240,897 13,438,000 13,874,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds................... 20,646,464 23,042,000 23,739,000
=======================================================
Total, Obligations............................ 652,139,066 760,681,200 638,739,000
=======================================================
Carryout................................................ 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year.......... 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $13,874,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $436,000 more
than the 2001 level and the same as the budget estimate.
In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools,
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The
Committee expects the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to
continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon and
salmon nuggets; and determine whether or not there is a surplus
and continued low prices in fiscal year 2002. If there is
surplus salmon and continued low prices in fiscal year 2002,
the Committee expects the Department to purchase surplus salmon
for use in the aforementioned feeding programs or for
humanitarian food aid.
payments to states and possessions
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $1,347,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,347,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides
$1,347,000. This amount is the same as the 2001 appropriation
and the budget request.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $31,350,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 32,907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,000,000
\1\ Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106-
554.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat,
and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect
meat and poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $34,000,000. This amount is $2,650,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and $1,093,000 more than the budget
request.
The Committee provides $400,000 for market contract catalog
reporting activities. Additional increases are provided to
enhance concentration and other anti-competitve investigative
activities.
The Committee does not assume the $3,758,000 in net savings
from collections from new user fees proposed in the budget.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Limitation, 2001........................................ ($42,463,000)
Budget limitation, 2002................................. (42,463,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (42,463,000)
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the
same as the 2001 level and the budget request.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $459,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 476,000
Committee recommendation................................ 476,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $476,000. This amount
is $17,000 more than the 2001 level and the same as the budget
request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $695,171,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 715,542,000
Committee recommendation................................ 715,747,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act; and to provide continuous in-plant
inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products
Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $715,747,000. This amount is
$20,576,000 more than the 2001 level and $205,000 more than the
budget request.
The Committee has provided an increase of $205,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for activities related to the
Codex Alimentarius and expects increased educational and
technical outreach to other nations in support of U.S. trade
and food safety positions.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 budget Committee
2001 estimates request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal food inspection...................................... 595,507 608,730 608,730
Import/export inspection..................................... 11,111 12,127 12,127
Laboratory services.......................................... 31,348 36,548 36,548
Field automation............................................. 8,005 8,005 8,005
Grants to States............................................. 41,642 42,517 42,517
Special assistance for State programs........................ 5,220 5,220 5,220
Codex Alimentarius........................................... 2,338 2,395 2,600
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 695,171 715,542 715,747
==================================================
Food safety inspection:
Federal.................................................. 620,271 638,513 638,513
State.................................................... 46,444 47,418 47,418
International............................................ 14,246 15,344 15,344
Codex........................................................ 2,338 2,395 2,600
FAIM......................................................... 11,872 11,872 11,872
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 695,171 715,542 715,747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $588,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 606,000
Committee recommendation................................ 606,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $606,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the
2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
With respect to claims for losses regarding sugar beets
grown for the 2000 crop year, the Committee expects that
processing and payment of such claims shall be governed by the
terms of the sugar beet policy as interpreted by the Risk
Management Agency in its Bulletin No.: MGR-01-010, issued March
2, 2001 and losses calculated under section 13(e) of the sugar
beet policy without regard to whether the sugar beets were
processed or unprocessed.
In making emergency financial assistance available under
section 815 of Public Law 106-387, with respect to sugar beets
grown for the 2000 crop year, and notwithstanding any different
procedure used to calculate indemnities under Federal crop
insurance policies, the Committee expects the Secretary to
include as the amount of quality loss the difference between
the per-unit payment that the producer would have received from
the Cooperative for processed and unprocessed sugar beets
affected by the quality loss if the crop had not suffered the
quality loss, and the per-unit payment that the producer did
receive from the Cooperative for the processed and unprocessed
beets affected by the quality loss.
During fiscal year 2001, funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation were provided for implementation of an
International School Lunch Program. The Committee notes the
benefits such program serves to relieve hunger throughout the
world, promote civil society, and also provide an outlet for
U.S. food production. The Committee encourages the Department
to continue these activities in fiscal year 2002 and to work
with the appropriate authorization committees to establish this
program under law.
The Committee is concerned that allocation of section 416
funds for humanitarian assistance programs may disadvantage
certain private voluntary organizations in regard to the amount
of those funds allowable for administrative costs. The
Committee requests the Secretary to evaluate the Department's
policy regarding allowable administrative costs for
distribution of commodities under section 416 for humanitarian
purposes and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House and Senate by March 1, 2002. In addition, the Committee
continues to urge the Secretary to work with representatives of
the dairy industry and appropriate non-governmental
organizations to increase the amount of fortified dry milk
exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
The Committee urges USAID and USDA to manage the Food
Security Commodity Reserve effectively to meet international
food aid commitments of the United States, including
supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet emergency
food needs.
In recent years, USDA has used its authority under the CCC
Charter Act of 1948 to purchase wheat and other surplus
commodities for distribution as international humanitarian
assistance under Section 416(b). This has benefitted American
farmers while also helping to alleviate world hunger. Low
commodity prices and global hunger will likely continue in the
coming year. The Committee urges USDA to use its existing
authority to purchase no less than 4,000,000 tons of surplus
commodities in fiscal year 2002 for donation as international
food aid, including the Global Food for Education Initiative.
The program should be approved by December 31, 2001 so that
there is sufficient time to ensure that purchases and donations
are made in an orderly manner. The program should be fully
coordinated with humanitarian and development projects managed
by private voluntary organizations, cooperatives and
international organizations.
U.S. Government-funded donation programs for rice, such as
Public Law 480 program and other commodity programs
administered by USDA, have been traditionally reserved for
value-added rice. Nearly half the U.S. rice crop is exported
each year and value added rice represents two-thirds of total
exports. This substantial demand for value-added rice has
helped enhance farm prices, keeps U.S. rice mills in operation,
which in turn, helped related rural businesses, providing jobs
and benefitting local economies.
Commercially, the U.S. rough rice market is healthy and
growing. Rough rice exports are already over 1,000,000 metric
tons this year, up 12 percent from this time last year.
Meanwhile, U.S. value-added exports are shrinking and are at
their lowest levels in 15 years. If unprocessed rice displaces
value-added rice for food aid, the U.S. industry would not only
suffer immediate economic loss, it would also undermine the
long-term viability of the industry by providing opportunities
to foreign competitors. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges
the Department to continue its focus of utilizing value-added
rice in U.S. government-funded food aid programs.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse
examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP],
and several other cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and
operating, and emergency disaster and other loan programs.
Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the
Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant's
prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well
as total program participation, each contract participant
shares a portion of a statutorily specified, annual dollar
amount. In return, participants must comply with certain
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments,
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production
adjustment requirements or related provisions, except for
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs,
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 act provides for
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract
commodities, extra long staple [ELS] cotton, and oilseeds for
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton,
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. However, with
respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary must allow repayment
of marketing loans at the adjusted world price. And,
specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance
loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the
lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest,
or the adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness
provisions are unchanged.
The 1996 act also provides for a loan program for sugar for
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane. The
Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act eliminated the
recourse feature. The 1996 act provides for a milk price
support program, whereby the price of milk is supported through
December 31, 1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat
dry milk. The rate of support is fixed each calendar year,
starting at $10.35 per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each
year to $9.90 per hundredweight in 1999. The milk price support
program is extended through December 31, 2001. The 1996 act and
the 1938 act provide for a peanut loan and poundage quota
program for the 1996 through 2002 crops of peanuts. Finally,
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 act), and the
1938 act provide for a price support, quota, and allotment
program for tobacco.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than
CCC's cost of money for that month.
The 1996 act amended the payment limitation provisions in
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act), by
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan
gains (MLG's) and loan deficiency payments (LDP's) for all
commodities that was in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop
years continues through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the
three-entity rule is continued.
For combined MLG's plus LDP's received for the 1999 and
2000 crops, the payment limit was increased to $150,000 per
person in separate pieces of legislation. Moreover, Congress
enacted discretionary authority in 1999 for the Secretary of
Agriculture to offer commodity certificate exchanges for loan
repayment purposes. Indirect gains received by producers due to
a certificate exchange are not subject to the MLG and LDP
payment limitation.
Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various
price support and related programs have been authorized in
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's.
Operations under these programs are financed through the
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the
Farm Service Agency are utilized in the administration of the
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the
Agency is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address
high-priority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of
the programs financed through CCC.
Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities
are conducted pursuant to specific statutory authorizations and
directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as
Public Law 480.
Farm credit programs.--FSA reviews applications, makes and
collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance
to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs
associated with agricultural credit insurance fund [ACIF] loans
are appropriated to the ACIF program account and transferred to
FSA salaries and expenses.
Risk management.--FSA administers the noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP] which provides crop loss
protection for growers of many crops for which crop insurance
is not available.
salaries and expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, FSA,
Appropriations Transfers from salaries and
program accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001................................... $826,563 ($266,132) \1\ ($1,092,695)
Budget estimate, 2002.................................. 939,030 (274,357) (1,213,387)
Committee recommendation............................... 939,030 (274,357) (1,213,387)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $49,890,000 in emergency and disaster assistance provided by Public Law 106-387.
The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,''
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA],
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the
Committee recommends $1,213,387,000. This is $120,692,000 more
than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.
The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under
to downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised
about the criteria being used for further staff reductions and
the potential impact these reductions will have on farm
services in all States. Until these concerns have been
addressed, States in compliance with the original Espy
reorganization plan should not be required to undertake further
staff reductions.
The Committee is concerned that FSA should allocate more
staff resources to the farm loan programs in both the field and
in the St. Louis Information Technology and Finance Center.
Without more farm loan staff in the field, FSA cannot
adequately perform the supervised credit functions which ensure
the success of the program, including but not limited to such
functions as real estate appraisals, chattel appraisals, and
year-end farm analysis. The Committee directs the Department to
report on the numbers of staff positions, by type and location,
and to provide a detailed explanation by object class, of funds
obligated from the Salaries & Expenses Account, to support the
farm loan programs by April 1, 2002.
The Committee supports farmer participation in the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) as a means to
coordinate conservation and producer objectives of natural
resource stewardship. The Committee encourages the Department,
acting through the Farm Service Agency, to improve outreach and
technical assistance for CREP in States where enrollment and
participation is not commensurate with enrollment expectations.
In addition, the Committee notes the difficulty of States
with high land values competing for enrollment in CREP. The
Committee urges the agency to evaluate the conservation of
benefits of CREP enrollment in all States and not give undue
consideration to enrollment opportunities based on land values
or rental rates.
state mediation grants
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $2,993,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 2,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,993,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural
water loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands,
and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation
programs have been certified by the Farm Service Agency [FSA].
Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the
State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $3,993,000 for State mediation
grants. This is $1,000,000 more than the 2001 level and the
budget request.
dairy indemnity program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $450,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends
$100,000. This is $350,000 less than the 2001 level and the
same as the budget request.
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a
specified initial period.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Farm ownership loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $731,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40
years or less.
Farm operating loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $731,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan
varies from 1 to 7 years.
Emergency disaster loans.--Made available in designated
areas (counties) and in contiguous counties where property
damage and/or severe production losses have occurred as a
direct result of a natural disaster. Areas may be declared by
the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by
the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.
Credit sales of acquired property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA
loans.
Indian tribe land acquisition loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the
members thereof.
Boll weevil eradication loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of
$3,891,000,000. This is $800,479,000 more than the 2001 level
and $35,695,000 more than the budget request.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2001 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2001 enacted 2002 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct \1\............................................... (127,722) (128,000) (147,000)
Guaranteed \2\........................................... (868,086) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Farm operating:
Direct \3\............................................... (522,891) (600,000) (611,000)
Guaranteed unsubsidized \4\.............................. (1,075,468) (1,500,000) (1,500,000)
Guaranteed subsidized \5\................................ (369,100) (500,000) (506,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition................................ (2,002) (2,000) (2,000)
Emergency disaster \6\....................................... (24,947) (25,000) (25,000)
Boll weevil eradication loans................................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
--------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans...................................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,891,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $2,800,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided
by Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Excludes estimated $141,420,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-113.
\3\ Excludes estimated $176,115,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-113.
\4\ Excludes estimated $311,332,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-113.
\5\ Excludes estimated $104,246,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-113.
\6\ Excludes estimated $273,569,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-113.
loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured Guaranteed Transfer to
loan \1\ loan \2\ Total Appropriations FSA Total ACIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001........... 67,449 89,283 116,732 4,130 264,731 385,592
Budget estimate, 2002.......... 60,427 124,950 185,377 8,000 272,595 465,972
Committee recommendation....... 60,427 124,950 185,377 8,000 272,595 465,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $83,294,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Excludes estimated $13,493,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106-113.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2001 enacted 2002 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct \1\.............................................. 13,756 3,366 3,866
Guaranteed \2\.......................................... 4,427 4,500 4,500
Farm operating:
Direct \3\.............................................. 47,251 53,580 54,580
Guaranteed unsubsidized \4\............................. 14,738 52,650 52,650
Guaranteed subsidized \5\............................... 30,119 67,800 68,550
Indian tribe land acquisition............................... 322 118 118
Emergency disaster \6\...................................... 6,120 3,363 3,363
Boll weevil eradication loans \7\........................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................... 116,733 185,377 187,627
ACIF expenses................................................... 268,861 280,595 280,595
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $302,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\2\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $721,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\3\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $15,886,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\4\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $4,265,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\5\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $8,507,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\6\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $67,107,000 (Public Law 106-113).
\7\ No cost since subsidy rate is negative.
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $65,453,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 74,752,000
Committee recommendation................................ 74,752,000
Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR]
Act of 1996, risk management activities previously performed by
the Farm Service Agency will be performed by the new Risk
Management Agency.
Risk management includes program activities in support of
the Federal Crop Insurance Program as authorized by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act. Functional areas
of risk management are: research and development; insurance
services; and compliance, whose functions include policy
formulation and procedures and regulations development. Reviews
and evaluations are conducted for overall performance to ensure
the actuarial soundness of the insurance program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$74,752,000. This is $9,299,000 more than the 2001 level and
the same as the budget request.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance
program.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy. At least
catastrophic [CAT] coverage was required for producers who
participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain
other farm programs. Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are offered the option
of waiving their eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance
instead of obtaining CAT coverage to meet program requirements.
Emergency loss assistance does not include emergency loans or
payment under the Noninsured Assistance Program [NAP].
Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began phasing out
delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices, and in 1998
designated the private insurance providers as the sole source
provider of CAT coverage.
The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies
for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for
catastrophic risk protection coverage for coverage up to 65
percent level at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or
greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount
is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for
50 percent yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected
market price.
The reform legislation included the NAP program for
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was
implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management,
under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program will remain with
the Farm Service Agency and be incorporated into the Commodity
Credit Corporation program activities.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic (CAT) coverage. More crops and
commodities will become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an
investment for over $8.2 billion in five years to further
improve Federal crop insurance.
federal crop insurance corporation fund
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $2,804,660,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 3,037,000,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 3,037,000,000
\1\ Such sums as may be necessary are provided; excludes $12,971,000 in
emergency and disaster assistance provided by Public Law 106-387.
\2\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, estimated to be $3,037,000,000. This is $232,340,000
more than the current fiscal year 2001 estimate and the same as
the budget request.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996; the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (1949 act); the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (1938 act); and the Food Security Act of
1985 (1985 act).
The 1996 act requires that the following programs be
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: 7-year production
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple
[ELS] cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The
milk price support program is extended through December 31,
2001.
The 7-year production flexibility contracts were offered to
eligible landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 1996,
with some contracts being available in subsequent years for
eligible contract-commodity acreage in the CRP program that,
prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the
contract expires. Statutorily established fixed dollar amounts
are to be distributed annually among contract participants
according to statutory formulas. With the exception of
limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be
planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract acreage
must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract
participants must comply with applicable land conservation and
wetland protection requirements.
Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of
ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to
producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of
such commodities are contract participants. Marketing loan
provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all
such commodities except ELS cotton.
The peanut loan program as provided by the 1996 act is
accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the
1938 act. The loan rate for quota peanuts is set at $610 per
ton for each of the crop years, 1996 through 2002. The quota
poundage floor (1.35 million tons in 1995) authorized by the
1938 act for 1995 is eliminated for the 1996 through 2002
crops. The 1996 act also amends the peanut provisions of the
1938 act pertaining to undermarketings of farm quotas and
transfers of quotas across county lines.
The 1996 act created a recourse loan program for sugar that
reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if
the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million
short tons (raw value) in any fiscal year, 1997-2002. The 1996
act suspends marketing allotment provisions in the 1938 act and
implements a 1-cent-per-pound penalty if cane sugar pledged as
collateral for a Corporation loan is forfeited. A similar
penalty applies to beet sugar.
The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 act is
supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by
the 1938 act. The tobacco program provisions in both acts were
not affected by the 1996 act.
Milk prices are supported each year through the end of
calendar year 1999 at statutorily established levels through
purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar
year 1996 support level was $10.35 per hundredweight for milk
containing 3.67 percent butterfat, and the rate declines
annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999.
Public Law 106-78 extended the milk price support program
through December 31, 2000, at the $9.90 support level. The 2001
appropriations act extended the milk price support program to
December 31, 2001, at the $9.90 per hundredweight support
level.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than
CCC's cost of money for that month. Moreover, the Corporation's
use of funds for purchases of information technology equipment,
including computers, is more restricted than it was prior to
enactment of the 1996 act.
The 1996 act amends the 1985 act to establish the
Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program [ECARP],
which encompasses the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], the
Wetland Reserve Program [WRP], and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program [EQIP]. Each of these programs is funded
through the Corporation.
The CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4
million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that
are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary
is to allow participants to terminate any CRP contract entered
into prior to January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided
the contract has been in effect for at least 5 years. The
Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future
early outs and future sign-ups of lands that meet enrollment
eligibility criteria.
WRP is reauthorized through the year 2002, not to exceed
975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996,
one-third of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements,
one-third in 30-year easements or less, and one-third in
wetland restoration agreements with cost sharing; 75,000 acres
of land in less than permanent easements must be placed in the
program before any additional permanent easements are placed.
A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established
to assist crop and livestock producers deal with environmental
and conservation improvements on the farm. The 1996 act
authorizes program funding of $200,000,000 annually for fiscal
years 1997 through 2002. One-half of the available funds are
for addressing conservation problems associated with livestock
operations and one-half for other conservation concerns. Five-
to ten-year contracts, based on a conservation plan will be
used to implement the program.
The 1996 act also authorizes other new Corporation-funded
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option,
flood risk reduction contracts, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes,
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
reimbursement for net realized losses
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $25,264,441,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\............................... 23,116,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 23,116,000,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) for net realized losses, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,
estimated in the budget to be $23,116,000,000. This is
$2,148,441,000 less than the current estimated level and the
same as the budget request.
operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management
Limitation, 2001........................................ ($5,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2002................................... (5,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (5,000,000)
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management
of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA's hazardous waste
management appropriation. The CCC funds operations and
maintenance costs only.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Commodity Credit Corporation operations and maintenance
for hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a
limitation of $5,000,000. This amount is the same as the 2001
level and the budget request.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $709,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 730,000
Committee recommendation................................ 730,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$730,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the 2001
appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service works with conservation districts,
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams,
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and,
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our
cities.
The conservation activities of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,
improving range condition, and improving water quality.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $712,545,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 773,454,000
Committee recommendation................................ 802,454,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation technical assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Soil surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
Snow survey and water forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Plant materials centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $802,454,000. This amount is $89,909,000 more
than the 2001 level and $29,000,000 more than the budget
request.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation
activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific
conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise
made available to States.
Projects identified in Senate Report 106-288 and Conference
Report 106-948 that were directed to be funded by the Committee
for fiscal year 2001 are not funded for fiscal year 2002,
unless specifically mentioned herein.
The Committee is aware of the severe water problems
occurring in the State of Georgia, especially in the Flint
River watershed in Southwest Georgia and the coastal watershed
in Southeast Georgia. Surface and ground water are being
severely depleted by drought and further exacerbated by salt
water intrusion into coastal agriculture areas. The Committee
provides $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 funding for the Georgia
Agricultural Water Conservation Initiative.
The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in the delta of
the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $800,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a
study to characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-
site impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use
change while preserving critical natural resources. The agency
is directed to work in cooperation with Clemson University in
conducting this study.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to expand the cooperative efforts with the Claude E.
Phillips Herbarium, Delaware.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to maintain a partnership between USDA and the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue work on the
Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion sediment
control.
The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 level for the grazing lands conservation
assistance program, of which no less than $250,000 shall be for
grazing land conservation activities in Wisconsin.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for the National Water Management Center in Arkansas.
The Comittee provides an increase of $750,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of
alien weed pests into Hawaii. The Committee directs the agency
to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the
Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service to develop an
integrated approach, including environmentally-safe biological
controls, for eradicating these pests.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to obtain and evaluate materials and seeds of plants
indigenous to regions north of 52 degrees North Latitude and
equivalent vegetated regions in the Southern Hemisphere (south
of 52 degrees South Latitude). The Committee directs the agency
to continue working in conjunction with the Alaska Division of
Agriculture in this effort.
The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the Oregon Garden, Silverton, OR.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001
level of funding for plant material centers and continued
development of warm season grasses for use in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Initiatives
Program (WHIP).
The Committee encourages the agency to provide $300,000 to
support the emerging alternative technology to reduce
phosphorous loading into Lake Champlain.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding to continue support of agricultural development and
resource conservation on the Island of Molokai and the
transition from small-scale conservation projects to those that
benefit the community through sustainable economic impact.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001
level for the Kenai streambank restoration water project for
fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach
effort so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers
in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural
resources. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program.
Sound economic grazing systems, marketing strategies, and
uniformity of production quality will ensure the
competitiveness of livestock operations and help maintain small
farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock
producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for technical assistance for Franklin County Lake,
Mississippi.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for two additional offices in Bethel and Nome in order
for NRCS to have a presence in western Alaska and includes
$350,000 for new offices in Juneau and Glennallen in fiscal
year 2002. Also, the Committee provides an additional $650,000
for funding necessary to support at least one staff position
for each soil and water conservation district, a public
information program, and assistance in rural Alaska.
The Committee provides $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
complete the Squirrel Branch Drainage Project, Mississippi.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for agroforestry efforts in conjunction with the
National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.
The Committee continues funding for the implementation of
the Delta Study at the fiscal year 2001 level. Local sponsors
are to work cooperatively with the NRCS so that water
conservation, water supply evaluations, and environmental
planning can proceed.
The Committee directs the agency to proceed with Phase II
of the Kuhn Bay Project (Point Remove), Arkansas.
The Committee directs the agency to work with soil
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties,
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level to address the erosion in the Loess
Hills area in western Iowa. The Committee is aware that the
Eastern Red Cedar and other invasive species of woody plants
are having a very negative effect on prairies in the Loess
Hills, a unique soil important to many rare animals and plants.
The Committee encourages the Department to support efforts to
reduce this problem.
The Committee provides $160,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
conduct nitrogen soil tests and plant-available nitrogen tests,
and to demonstrate poultry litter and wood composting in an
effort to improve farmers' economic returns and minimize
potential water quality conditions resulting from excess
application of nutrients from manure and fertilizers on West
Virginia's cropland.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for the Delta Conservation
Demonstration Center, Washington County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $200,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
the Idaho One-Plan, a test of the prototype Conservation
Planning Module in the field with farmers and ranchers in
Canyon County, Idaho.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center,
to identify and characterize phosphorous movement in soils to
determine appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and
the management of phosphorous. This information is critical in
helping Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues
and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and
the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from
depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for evaluating and increasing native plant materials in
Alaska.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2001 funding level
for technical assistance for the Seward/Resurrection River
watershed project, Alaska.
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level of funding for the continued development
of a geographic information system (GIS)-based model in South
Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation program data
at the field level for watershed analysis purposes.
The Committee provides $8,515,000 for Snow Survey and Water
Supply Forecasting and activities related to SNOwpack TELemetry
(SNOTEL). This level is $2,538,000 more than the amount
provided in fiscal year 2001 and $2,378,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
improve drainage along Lyon Creek in Taylorsville, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $750,000 for a feasibility study on
the Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure
Delivery System in Idaho.
The Committee provides $400,000 for the Backyard
Conservation Program as part of the National Cooperative Soil
Program. This funding is to be used to provide technical
assistance on grazing lands and backyard containment of water
runoff in order to improve nutrient management and protect
water resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The Committee provides no less than $250,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 level for technical assistance related to the
Barataria-Terrebone National Estuary Program. This program will
assist in the reduction of non-point source pollution affecting
water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and the lessening of the
causes of hypoxia. Landowners in this area are encouraged to
make application under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program to obtain financial assistance necessary to carry out
this program.
The Committee provides $750,000 for planning, design, and
technical assistance associated with the Little Red River
Irrigation Project in Arkansas.
Recurring floods along the Red River in recent years have
resulted in tremendous loss of property and have endangered
residents throughout the basin. A number of methods, such as
enhanced water storage capacity, more efficient drainage, and
shifts in agricultural land use, may be employed to retard the
flow of flood waters and reduce downstream flooding. It is
important that these improvements be pursued in a manner
beneficial to agriculture and result in minimal loss of
productive farm land. Accordingly, the Committee provides
$1,000,000 for the Red River Basin Flood Prevention Project in
North Dakota in cooperation with the Energy and Environmental
Research Center.
The Committee provides $2,000,000 to provide technical
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control Cost-Share
Program, and an additional $700,000 to accelerate the Kentucky
Soil Survey Program. The Committee also encourages the NRCS to
enter into cooperative agreements with Kentucky Soil
Conservation Districts to further the partnerships among these
organizations.
The Committee is aware of growing demands on natural
resources in New York State resulting from increased
development and urban sprawl. The Committee provides $230,000
for use through a cooperative agreement with Pace University to
promote sustainable growth and protection of soil and water
resources.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Central Alabama/
Birmingham Water Quality and Conservation Initiative. In
addition, the Committee provides $400,000 for the Alabama Gulf
Coast Water Quality and Conservation Initiative.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for conservation
activities in Wisconsin in cooperation with the Aldo Leopold
Foundation.
The Committee provides $580,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
study, planning and design to implement floodwater retarding
structures in the Town Creek Watershed, Carthage, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
cattle and nutrient management in stream crossings in
cooperation with Mississippi conservation districts.
The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
provide bank stabilization structures in the Strayhorn Creek
Watershed, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $300,000 to implement the Certified
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture (CEMSA) in
cooperation with the Iowa Soybean Association. CEMSA will be
designed to assist producers to voluntarily adopt certifiable
conservation plans and is expected to be implemented over a 3-
year period at a total cost of $1,000,000, with additional
funds to be provided from non-Federal sources.
The Committee provides $250,000 for planning and design
associated with the Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, Arkansas.
The Committee provides $350,000 for advanced wetland plant
research at Silverton, Oregon, to plant and study optimal
species for conserving water, reducing soil runoff, and
removing toxins. In addition, the Committee is aware of needs
for additional technical assistance in Oregon and other States
and encourages the Secretary to examine the distribution of
funds among States in correlation with overall conservation
needs.
The Committee directs the NRCS to develop a plan to
establish a Geographic Information Systems Center of Excellence
in cooperation with West Virginia University that will provide
expertise to design, field, and support new applications for
capturing, managing, analyzing, and delivering soil survey
information in an easily accessible manner.
The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed
management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the
National Pork Producers Council.
The Committee provides $350,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
flood control in the Pearl River Basin, Dry Creek watershed in
Marion County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
install grade stabilization structures in the Skuna River,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $175,000 for fiscal year 2002 for a
cooperative agreement between NRCS and Alcorn State University
to analyze soil erosion and water quality by using
demonstration sites.
The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the Wildlife Management Institute
for developing and transferring fish and wildlife technology to
States and field offices.
The Committee provides $750,000 to assist in the conversion
to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, Idaho, in
order to reduce water quality impairments resulting from the
return of water runoff to the aquifer by way of agricultural
drain wells.
The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
survey the Chickasaway River in Quitman, Mississippi, to
provide planning and design for de-snagging and debris removal.
The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
perform a feasibility study for a surface impoundment in
Choctaw County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
finish installing the remaining channel work on Coonewah Creek
in Lee County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the
2001 fiscal year level for the continuation of the Delta
Conservation Demonstration Center, Washington County,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for
a channel modification to the Mill Creek Watershed in the City
of Magee, MS, to prevent further flooding.
The Committee is aware of the additional demands for
conservation technical assistance resulting from the New Jersey
State Conservation Cost Share Program and urges the agency to
provide additional assistance in cooperation with that program.
The Committee provides a total of $600,000 for conservation
programs related to cranberry production in the States of
Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Upper Petit Jean
Watershed Project, Arkansas.
The Committee expects the National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) to continue to support the work of the Southwest
Strategy and its coordinated effort to help address the natural
resource, cultural resource, and economic issues facing the
people of New Mexico and Arizona.
From within the available funds for the Alaska State
Office, the Committee directs the Service to work with Harding
Lake Association to study the Harding Lake Watershed.
Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides $200,000,
the same level available in fiscal year 2001 and $100,000 above
the budget request, to improve the Hawaii Plant Materials
Center's capability to propagate native plants in support of
the Federal cleanup on the Island of Kahoolawe and to
facilitate start-up of native plant nurseries.
The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from the
fiscal year 2001 level for the Golden Meadow Plant Materials
Center for necessary facility improvements and to support
ongoing work in the areas of coastal wetland plant species and
coastal prairie plant restoration.
The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 to
make improvements to the existing building and facilities at
the Jamie Whitten Plant Materials Center.
watershed surveys and planning
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $10,844,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 10,960,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,960,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
watershed surveys and planning.
River basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for
carrying out the plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $10,960,000. This amount is
$116,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the
budget request.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $99,224,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 100,413,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,413,000
\1\ Excludes $109,758,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law
106-387.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed and flood prevention operations, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,413,000. This
amount is $1,189,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the
same as the budget request.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2001 level of
funding for the Little Sioux Watershed and Mosquito Creek
Watershed projects, Iowa.
The Committee encourages the agency to provide assistance
within available funds for erosion control along the Tanana
River bordering the Big Delta State Historical Park; and the
Matanuska River, Alaska.
Access to a consistent source of potable water became even
more difficult for West Virginia families and farmers during
the drought of 1999. While existing flood impoundments protect
these people during floods, these impoundments do not include a
water storage component that would allow the impoundment to
serve a dual role. The Committee directs the NRCS in West
Virginia to work toward redesign of its existing flood
impoundments to include water storage as an additional
function.
The Committee encourages the agency to support the
increased demands for project completions dedicated to
increasing water storage capacity, improving the efficiency of
delivery systems, and conserving water through flood control
projects, Hawaii.
The Committee recognizes the importance of building the
Lost River Watershed Dam Number 10, West Virginia, and
encourages the funding for the award of the construction
contract for this project.
The Committee urges the agency to proceed with the
implementation of the watershed plans for the Deckers Creek
Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Remediation and Land Mine
Treatment project, the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment
Watershed project, and the Knapps Creek Stream Restoration
Watershed project, West Virginia.
The Committee continues to be aware of flooding in the
Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has
risen in each of the past 6 years. The lake is now more than 25
feet higher than it was in 1993. The Committee encourages the
agency, with the cooperation of the Farm Service Agency, to
assist in the locally coordinated flood response and water
management activities. NRCS and FSA should continue to utilize
conservation programs in providing water holding and storage
areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in
watershed management.
The Committee urges NRCS to proceed with construction of
Phase II of the watershed flood control project in the vicinity
of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
The Committee urges the NRCS to assist dairy farmers with
the installation or renovation of waste management features to
protect water quality levels in Lake Pontchartrain and the
Middle Tangipahoa Watershed, Louisiana.
The Committee provides funds and expects NRCS to provide
assistance for projects in the Embarras River Basin, Lake
County Watershed, and DuPage County, Illinois.
The Committee provides funds for continuing work by the
NRCS for the Muenster Watershed, Texas.
The Committee supports work by the NRCS to assist the town
of Swan Quarter, North Carolina, to provide protection from
flooding from area farm lands.
The Committee provides funds for continuing work in
connection with the East Fork of the Grand River, Twelve Mile
Creek, Twin Ponies, Troublesome Creek, West Fork of the Big
Creek, Soap Creek parts 10 and 11, Mill Creek and Little River
projects all located in Iowa.
The Committee encourages the agency to provide assistance
for the Small Watershed Program for the Environmental
Assessment and design phase of the Pocasset River watershed
plan, Rhode Island.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $10,000,000
The Committee recommends a new watershed rehabilitation
program account for technical and financial assistance to carry
out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act, approved August 4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended
by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16
U.S.C. 1012).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000. This amount is $10,000,000 more than
the fiscal year 2001 level and the budget request.
The Committee is aware of the need for the rehabilitation
of structures located in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South
Dakota.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $41,923,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 43,048,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,048,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work
plans for resource conservation and development projects in
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and
water conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For resource conservation and development, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $48,048,000. This amount is
$6,125,000 more than the 2001 level and $5,000,000 more than
the budget request. This increase is intended to provide
additional support for existing resource conservation and
development councils and to allow for consideration of newly
authorized areas in states.
forestry incentives program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $6,311,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 7,811,000
The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. This program
is carried out by providing technical assistance and long-term
cost-sharing agreements with private landowners.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Forestry Incentives Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $7,811,000. This amount is
$1,500,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and $7,811,000 more
than the budget request.
The Committee notes authorization under the Forestry
Incentives Program for removal and site preparation for
replanting on private lands which may serve to reduce the
potential of wildfires and directs the agency, where
appropriate, to provide resources for that purpose.
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
In the 1930's and 1940's, these agencies were primarily
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these
agencies have a multi-billion dollar assistance program
throughout all America providing loans and grants for single-
family, multi-family housing, and special housing needs, a
variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business
development programs.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $604,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 623,000
Committee recommendation................................ 623,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
committee recommendations
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$623,000. This amount is $19,000 more than the 2001 level and
the same as the budget request.
The Committee is aware the Department has previously
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership
(NRDP). The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural
development at the State and local level. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue support for this
important organization from within available funds.
The Committee is aware of a proposal for a Rural Economic
Area Partnership (REAP) Zone designation for 17 southern
Illinois counties. The proposal was drafted by a coalition of
regional planning and development organizations in Southern
Illinois. The Committee encourages the Department to give the
proposal serious review and to provide appropriate funding and
technical assistance.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $760,864,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 692,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,004,125,000
\1\ Excludes $199,560,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations
provided by Public Law 106-387.
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend,
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those
providing or supporting overall community development, such as
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the
majority of available funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the
purpose of improving, developing or financing business,
industry, and employment or improving the economic and
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings,
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital.
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less
than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed
$1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private nonprofit
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train,
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership
development; and to establish centers for training, technology,
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
committee recommendations
For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the
Committee recommends $1,004,125,000. This amount is
$243,261,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 level and
$312,000,000 more than the budget request.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2001 2002 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
Community facility direct loan subsidies.............. 29,161 13,545 13,945
Community facility grants............................. 13,000 12,958 14,958
Economic impact initiative grants..................... 49,890 ................ 25,000
High energy costs grants.............................. 29,934 ................ 30,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, community................................. 121,985 26,503 83,903
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry loan subsidies:
Direct............................................ 2,904 ................ ................
Guaranteed........................................ 13,354 27,400 28,400
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 45,564 40,575 46,575
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 2,993 2,993 2,993
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 64,815 70,968 77,968
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal loan subsidies: Direct....... 109,953 55,664 96,840
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 529,498 529,498 741,422
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,492 3,492 3,992
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 642,942 588,654 842,254
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... \1\ 760,864 692,125 1,004,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $199,560 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106-387.
Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee
provides the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for
transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development
and assistance initiative.
Community facility grants.--The Committee is aware of and
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
relating to community facilities for structural needs of the
following: the Vermont Foodbank; the Kawarek Washeteria,
Alaska; Jessieville Fire Department, Arkansas; Rural Primary
Care and Health Service Research Center, South Dakota; medical
facility technology infrastructure, South Dakota; pavilion
facility improvements, Jackson Parish, Louisiana; the Southern
Plains Conference Center, Oklahoma; Blairstown Police
Department, New Jersey; the Rural Boys and Girls Clubs of
Alaska; and Warren County, Mississippi.
Economic impact initiative grants.--The Committee includes
bill language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural Community
Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme unemployment or
severe economic depression.
The Committee expects the Department to focus on grants
that would create new jobs in the telecommunications sector by
making the Internet available in rural communities without such
service. Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department
to favorably consider a grant application from the Alaska Rural
Communications Service (ARCS) to provide basic Internet service
to underserved Alaska communities and to provide basic
television service to communities in Alaska with one or fewer
television stations.
High energy cost grants.--The Committee includes bill
language to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities
Service.
Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business opportunity grants (RBOG) from the
following: grants relating to the Cornerstone Project in
Vermont; Agrilink Foods, Wisconsin; Idaho Rural Economic
Development Initiative; and the City of Sand Point, Alaska.
Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is also
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business enterprise grants (RBEG) from
the following: the Grants to Broadcasting Program; Vermont
Maple Industry Council; Women in Technology Project, Hawaii;
Alaska cultural and ecotourism web site, construction of the
Gateway Forest Products Dock, Alaska; Central Kentucky Grower's
Association; Eastern Kentucky Superior Livestock Marketing
Initiative; Port District of Brookings Harbor, Oregon; Value-
Added Export Center, Arkansas; South Carolina Rural Development
Fund; South Dakota Department of Agriculture Value-Added
Finance Authority; Rural Economic Development Through Tourism
(REDTT); Alsea Port and the Fire District Cooperative, Oregon.
The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the
system by which applications for rural business enterprise
grants are considered does not discriminate against
applications which may benefit multiple States.
Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants
relating to the following projects: the town of Colby,
Wisconsin; the City of Dillingham, Alaska; City of Aberdeen,
and the Shoshone-Bannock Drinking Water System, Idaho; and, the
counties of Florence, Richland, and York, South Carolina.
The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up
to $24,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems for rural
and native villages in Alaska; $20,000,000 for water and waste
disposal systems for the colonias along the United States-
Mexico border; and $16,000,000 for water and waste disposal
systems for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes. In
addition, the Committee makes up to $9,850,000 available for
the circuit rider program of which the $350,000 increase from
fiscal year 2001 shall be provided to those States that have
the most water and waste disposal systems. These States have
the most need for a third circuit rider program due to the
demand for assistance to these many systems.
Water and waste technical assistance training grants.--The
Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to consider a
grant request from the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse,
for which an increase in this program is provided; and the
Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide rural Alaska
natives statewide training in water and waste systems operation
and maintenance.
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Department to consider an application from
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska, for a landfill/solid waste
disposal project.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2001 2002 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations............................................... 130,084 133,722 133,722
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ (408,333) (419,741) (422,241)
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans (34,640) (35,604) (36,000)
Program Account.........................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................... (2,993) ............... (3,082)
Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account................. ............... (3,082) ...............
Rural Local Television Program Account................... ............... ............... (2,000)
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Ac- count........... (3,632) (3,733) (3,733)
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses...................... 579,682 595,882 600,778
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $600,778,000 for salaries and
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development
Programs. This amount is $21,096,000 more than the fiscal year
2001 level and $4,896,000 more than the budget request.
The Committee provides from within funds made available,
$200,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level for new field
offices in Cordova, Kotzebue, and Kodiak, Alaska.
Within funds made available, the Secretary should develop a
program to hire, train, and support staff in the Rural
Development local offices to provide a home buyer education and
credit counseling service to Section 502 direct loan, and
other, borrowers.
The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to,
any function that affects eligibility determination,
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
Further, the Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2002, on
all plans by the Department to enter into contracts to carry
out any of the previously stated activities.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing
direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers,
families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits are
communicated to all program eligible customers with special
outreach efforts to target resources to underserved,
impoverished, or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower
the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by
redesigning more effective programs that work in partnership
with State and local governments and the private sector; and
(4) leverage the economic benefits through the use of low-cost
credit programs, especially guaranteed loans.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends total appropriations of
$1,480,977,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is
$37,686,000 more than the 2001 level and $22,575,000 more than
the budget request.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside of funds within rural housing programs to support self-
help housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation
and State rental assistance, and other related activities that
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2001 levels and the 2002 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2001 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... (1,064,651) (1,064,650) (1,095,046)
Unsubsidized guaranteed.............................. (3,136,429) (3,137,968) (3,137,968)
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ (32,324) (32,324) (32,324)
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ (99,780) (99,770) (99,770)
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ (114,070) (114,068) (114,068)
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... (5,152) (5,090) (5,090)
Credit sales of acquired property........................ (11,779) (11,778) (11,778)
Self-help housing land development fund.................. (4,998) (5,000) (5,000)
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF.......................................... (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044)
==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................ (28,460) (28,459) (28,459)
Farm labor housing grants................................ 14,967 14,967 14,967
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program............................ (43,427) (43,426) (43,426)
==================================================
Grants and payments:
Mutual and self-help housing............................. 33,925 33,925 35,000
Rental assistance........................................ 678,504 693,504 708,504
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]................... 43,903 38,914 38,914
--------------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and pay- ments.......... 756,332 766,343 782,418
==================================================
Total, RHS loans and grants.......................... (5,268,942) (5,280,417) (5,326,888)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made
to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size,
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2001 levels and the
2002 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct................................................. 170,983 140,108 144,108
Unsubsidized guaranteed................................ 7,384 40,166 40,166
Housing repair (sec. 504).................................. 11,456 10,386 10,386
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538).................. 1,517 3,921 3,921
Rental housing (sec. 515).................................. 56,202 48,274 48,274
Site loans (sec. 524)...................................... ............... 28 28
Credit sales of acquired property.......................... 872 750 750
Self-help housing land development fund.................... 278 254 254
------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................... 248,692 243,887 247,887
================================================
Administrative expenses........................................ 408,333 419,741 422,241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $678,504,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 693,504,000
Committee recommendation................................ 708,504,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
established a rural rental assistance program to be
administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by low-income
families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts
authority to existing contracts; any remaining authority will
be used for projects receiving new construction commitments
under sections 514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families
with certain limitations.
committee recommendations
For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $708,504,000. This amount is
$30,000,000 more than the 2001 level and $15,000,000 more than
the budget request.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $33,925,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 33,925,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,000,000
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of
construction supervisors who will work with families in the
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This is $1,075,000 more than the 2001
level and $1,075,000 more than the budget request.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $43,903,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 38,914,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,914,000
This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
Very low-income housing repair grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $7,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and technical assistance grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for construction defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural housing preservation grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and
very low-income people.
The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be
administered by local grantees.
Committee Recommendations
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the
Committee recommends $38,914,000. This is $4,989,000 less than
the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2001 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................... 29,934 29,934 29,934
Supervisory and technical assistance............................ 998 998 998
Rural housing preservation grants............................... 7,982 7,982 7,982
Demonstration housing grants for agriculture processing workers. 4,989 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 43,903 38,914 38,914
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............................................ (28,460) 14,967 14,967
Budget estimate, 2002........................................... (28,459) 13,464 14,967
Committee recommendation........................................ (28,459) 13,464 14,967
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
committee recommendations
For direct farm labor housing loans, the Committee
recommends a total level of $28,431,000. This is $1,503 less
than the 2001 level and the same as the budget request.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level........ (38,172) (38,171) (38,171)
Direct loan subsidy......... 19,433 16,494 16,494
Administrative expenses..... 3,632 3,733 3,733
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural
businesses, community development corporations, private
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities,
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy
in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2002, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Committee Recommendations
For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the
Committee recommends a total loan level of $38,171,000. This is
$1,000 less than the 2001 loan level and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee encourages the agency to consider the
following for intermediary relending loans: Rural Enterprises
Incorporated loan, Oklahoma; Santiam Canyon, Oregon;
cooperative technical assistance in Hilo, Hawaii; Shirley
Community Development Center; and the Rural Manufacturing Jobs
Initiative, Pennsylvania.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level................................... 14,969 14,966 14,966
Direct loan subsidy \1\................................ 3,902 3,616 3,616
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the
Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion
of credits payment program and created the rural economic
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized
under the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies,
startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose of
fostering rural economic development.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy
appropriation for rural economic development loans of
$3,616,000. This amount is $286,000 less than the 2001 level
and the same as the budget request. As proposed in the budget,
the $3,616,000 provided is derived by transfer from interest on
the cushion of credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $6,486,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 6,486,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,000,000
\1\ Excludes $9,978,000 in emergency funding provided by Public Law 106-
387.
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-Federal sources. Grants are competitive and
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for rural cooperative
development grants. This is $1,514,000 more than the 2001 level
and the budget request.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
consider the following applications for cooperative development
grants: the Alaska Network Systems for Internet Facilities;
Montana State University-Northern Cooperative Development
Center; Mississippi Association of Cooperatives; and a rural
cooperative located in Elko, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties,
Nevada.
Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development
grants, $2,000,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for
the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,497,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $14,967,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 14,967,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,967,000
\1\ Provided by Public Law 106-377.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $14,967,000 for Rural Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is
$14,967,000 more than the amount provided in Public Law 106-
387, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
and the same as the budget request. $14,967,000 was provided in
Public Law 106-377, the Department of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee recommendations
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the ``Rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program'' account, the loan subsidy and administrative
expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget
request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent......................................... (121,128) (121,107) (121,107)
Direct, Muni.............................................. (294,358) (294,358) (500,000)
Direct, FFB............................................... (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (2,600,000)
Direct, Treasury rate..................................... (500,000) (500,000) (750,000)
Guaranteed................................................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
---------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,615,486) (2,615,465) (4,071,107)
=============================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent......................................... (74,835) (74,827) (74,827)
Direct, Treasury rate..................................... (300,000) (300,000) (300,000)
Direct, FFB............................................... (120,000) (120,000) (120,000)
---------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (494,835) (494,827) (494,827)
---------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations.............................. (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934)
=============================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent......................................... 12,604 3,609 3,609
Direct, Muni.............................................. 20,458 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Direct, FFB............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Direct, Treasury rate..................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Guaranteed................................................ 10 80 80
---------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 32,532 3,689 3,689
=============================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent......................................... 7,753 1,736 1,736
Direct, Treasury rate..................................... ( \1\ ) 300 300
Direct, FFB............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
---------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 7,753 2,036 2,036
---------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................... 40,285 5,725 5,725
=============================================
Administrative expenses........................................... 34,640 35,604 36,000
---------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 74,925 41,329 41,725
Programs Account...........................................
=============================================
(Loan authorization).................................... (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are calculated for these programs.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
Loan level subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001.......................................... (174,615) 2,584 2,993
Budget estimate, 2002......................................... ............... ............... 3,082
Committee recommendation...................................... (174,615) 3,737 3,082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2001, as well as for administrative
expenses.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends $3,737,000 which supports a loan
level of $174,615,000. This amount is $1,153,000 more than the
2001 level and $3,737,000 more than the budget request.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND telemedicine program
loans and grants
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2001 level 2002 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance learning and telemedicine direct loan............... (400,000) (300,000) (300,000)
Broadband telecommunications direct loans.................... ............... (100,000) (100,000)
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Grants....................................................... 26,941 26,941 51,941
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. (426,941) (426,941) (426,941)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal year 2002 are calculated for this program.
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program is
authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
This program provides incentives to improve the quality of
phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
Committee Recommendations
For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the
Committee recommends $51,941,000. This amount is $25,000,000
more than the 2001 level and the budget request. Of the funds
provided $25,000,000 is made available for a program to finance
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service for
rural areas.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to the following applications for grants and
loans: Valley Children's Hospital; the Center for the
Advancement of Distance Education in Rural American (CADERA)
telehealth proposal in New Mexico; the University of Vermont
College of Medicine to support a statewide telemedicine system
for trauma services; Fresno Community Medical Center's Rural
Outreach and Telemedicine Network; the Alaska Federal Health
Care Access Network; the Pacific Northwest digital divide
center in Washington State; the State of Vermont to support the
expansion of distance learning networks in schools; for
distance learning sites in Bland, Craig, and Grayson Counties,
Virginia; Avera-McKennan Hospital in South Dakota for the
establishment of a Secure Rural Imaging Network; the Business
and Technology Center at Petit Jean College; Darton College's
information and education network in rural Georgia; to
establish a rural technology-assistance program at Iowa State
University; True North initiative to develop a technology-based
sector across northeastern Minnesota; for aquaculture education
and distance learning at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Center;
and the College of Southern Idaho to expand educational
opportunities to rural residents.
The Committee also is aware of the need for the distance
learning and telemedicine link program of the Maui Community
College, the community hospital system, and the nutrition
education activities of the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The Committee
encourages the Department to fund a demonstration project to
build upon existing resources and to further the use of
advanced telecommunications by rural communities.
The bill provides $25,000,000 for rural broadband
telecommunications infrastructure, rural Internet
infrastructure, and refinancing to enhance rural broadband
deployment, for grants and direct loans between 2 percent and
treasury rates of interest plus \1/8\th of a percent, with
$12,500,000 of the budget authority available for grants and
$12,500,000 available for loans.
LOCAL TELEVISION LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
Loan level Subsidy Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............................................ .............. .............. ..............
Budget estimate, 2002........................................... .............. .............. ..............
Committee recommendation........................................ $322,580,000 $25,000,000 $2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local television loan guarantee program is authorized
by Public Law 106-533, Title X, Local TV Act. The purpose of
this Act is to facilitate access, on a technologically neutral
basis and by December 31, 2006, to signals of local television
stations for households located in nonserved areas and
underserved areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the servicing
of guaranteed loans, as well as administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Local Television Loan Guarantee Program, the
Committee recommends $25,000,000, which supports a loan level
of $322,580,000. This amount is $25,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2001 funding level and the budget request.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $569,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 587,000
Committee recommendation................................ 587,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $587,000. This amount is $18,000 more than the
2001 level and the same as the budget request.
The Committee is aware of innovative work in Wisconsin and
Iowa which has made milk available through school vending
machines as an alternative to other beverages. The Under
Secretary is urged to examine the merits of these experiments
and, if found to hold potential for improvement of child health
and nutrition, is expected to expand these efforts as pilot
programs in these states.
During fiscal year 2001, funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation were provided for implementation of a Senior
Farmers Market Nutrition Program. The Committee notes the
benefits such a program serves to improve nutrition among the
elderly, and also provide an outlet for U.S. food production.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue these
activities in fiscal year 2002 and to work with the appropriate
authorization committees to establish this program under law.
The Committee is concerned about the arrangements between
formula manufacturers and hospitals under which manufacturers
provide hospitals with formula and other products, product
information and/or incentives and directs the Secretary to
assess the impact of such arrangements on State infant formula
rebate contracts under the WIC Program and breast-feeding rates
among WIC participants.
The Committee recognizes that childhood obesity and adult
diseases in children, such as type II diabetes of which poor
nutrition is the major contributing factor, have become a
serious problem. In response, the Committee believes that
nutrition education is crucial to the health and well-being of
our nation's children, and the Department should have a
significant nutrition education program in our schools.
Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to put an
increased emphasis on nutrition education and training.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through
the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and
transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability,
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of food stamps. The
program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35)
authorizes a block grant for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto
Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in
establishing a nutrition assistance program that is
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income
households.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase
commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Funds
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and
administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance
Program [TEFAP].
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act.
Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting
administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding for
use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters. Commodities, or cash in lieu of commodities, are
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly. Funds
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Food Program Administration.--Most salaries and Federal
operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded
from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and
revisions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the
focal point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion
and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As
of September 30, 2000, there were 1,524 full-time permanent and
89 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. FNS's
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria, VA, totals
553, and 1,060 FNS employees are located in the field. There
are 7 regional offices employing 652 employees, and the balance
of the agency is located in 4 food stamp compliance offices, 1
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative
review office, and 69 field offices. Funds for this program are
provided by direct appropriation.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001...................................... 4,413,931 5,127,579 9,541,510
Budget estimate, 2002..................................... 4,731,490 5,357,256 10,088,746
Committee recommendation.................................. 4,746,538 5,340,708 10,087,246
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the
form of cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving
nutritious meals to children while they are attending school,
residing in service institutions, or participating in other
organized activities away from home. The purpose of these
programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical
development of America's children. Milk is provided to children
either free or at a low cost depending on their family income
level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child
nutrition provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes the
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age
18 in after-school programs, and provides funds for
demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children
and family day care homes in low-income areas. Beginning on
July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the
Homeless Summer Food Service Program will be transferred into
the CACFP.
National School Lunch Program [NSLP].--(1) Significantly
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:
1. Cash payments to States.--The programs are operated
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and
other institutions. Sponsors make application to the State
agencies, and if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis
in accordance with the terms of their agreements and rates
prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for
food away from home.
(a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to
the States for the service of lunches to all school
children, regardless of family income. States must
match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year
2002, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance
for serving an estimated 4.7 billion school lunches
including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income
families and 2.7 billion for children from lower and
low-income families. An estimated 28.0 million children
are expected to participate in the program daily during
the school year.
(b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price
lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the
States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price
to needy children. In fiscal year 2002, under current
law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.7
billion lunches, of which 2.3 billion will be served
free of charge and 0.4 billion at reduced price. About
16.2 million needy children will participate in the
program on an average schoolday during the year.
(c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement
to the States is based on the number of breakfasts
served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate
for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools
are designated in severe need because, in the second
preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of
their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the
regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to
cover cost, receive higher rates of reimbursement in
both the free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal
year 2002, the program will serve an estimated 1.4
billion breakfasts to a daily average of 8.4 million
children.
A pilot project is authorized and funded to study the
effects of providing free breakfast to all students
without regard to family income.
(d) State administrative expenses.--The funds may be
used for State employee salaries, benefits, support
services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made
the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5
percent of certain Federal payments in the second
previous year. In fiscal year 2002, $129,929,000 will
be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State
administrative expenses and to improve the management
of various nutrition programs.
(e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free
to children in low-income neighborhoods during the
summer months are supported on a performance basis by
Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are
also provided for related State and local
administrative expenses. During the summer of 2002,
approximately 152.0 million meals will be served.
(f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool
children receive year-round food assistance in
nonprofit child care centers and family and group day
care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits
profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation
under title XX of the Social Security Act to
participate in the program if 25 percent of the
children served are title XX participants. Certain
adult day care centers are also eligible for
participation in this program, providing subsidized
meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State
agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches,
suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related
State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2002,
approximately 1.8 billion meals will be served.
2. Commodity procurement.--Commodities are purchased for
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32
funds.
3. Nutrition studies and education.--
(a) Nutrition education and training [NET].--This
program provides funds to State agencies for the
development of comprehensive nutrition education and
information programs for children participating in or
eligible for school lunch and related child nutrition
programs.
(b) National Food Service Management Institute
[NFSMI].--The National Food Service Management
Institute provides instruction for educators and school
food service personnel in nutrition and food service
management.
4. Special milk.--In fiscal year 2002, approximately 120.3
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program.
These include about 114.5 million half-pints served to children
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During
fiscal year 2002, the average full cost reimbursement for milk
served to needy children is expected to be 17.0 cents for each
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be
reimbursed at 13.0 cents for each half-pint.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $4,746,538,000, plus transfers from section
32 of $5,340,708,000, for a total program of $10,087,246,000.
This amount is $545,736,000 more than the 2001 level and
$1,500,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2001 estimate 2002 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................ 5,468,561 5,759,232 5,759,232
School Breakfast Program........................................ 1,488,604 1,579,752 1,579,752
State administrative expenses................................... 123,256 129,929 129,929
Summer Food Service Program..................................... 299,959 325,341 325,341
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................... 1,765,743 1,878,179 1,878,179
Special Milk Program............................................ 15,874 15,940 15,940
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support......... 357,023 381,877 381,877
Coordinated review system....................................... 4,507 4,507 4,507
Team nutrition.................................................. 9,991 9,991 9,991
Food safety education........................................... 1,998 1,998 1,998
School breakfast demonstration project.......................... 5,994 .............. ..............
School lunch program integrity.................................. .............. 2,000 ..............
School Breakfast Startup Grant Program.......................... .............. .............. 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides $9,991,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,191,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
The Committee provides $500,000 to continue a School
Breakfast Program startup grant program for the State of
Wisconsin in order to help cover appropriate costs associated
with the program and to expand the availability of school
breakfasts for children.
The Committee includes a general provision in the bill to
expand the number of low-income children in child care centers
that receive nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care
Food Program. This language eliminates the outdated requirement
that eligible children receive Title 20 funds in order to
receive the CACFP meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary
centers to participate in CACFP if at least 25 percent of the
children they serve are eligible for a free or reduced price
meal.
The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option.
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in
increasing participation in the CACFP program. Under current
law, which provides two options of participation, States are
encouraged to use this flexibility to maximize participation
until the 25 percent free or reduced-price meal eligibility
criteria is made permanent.
Congress amended the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act in 1998 to strengthen the Buy American provision that
applies to the school-based child nutrition programs. FNS
issued regulations implementing this provision in 1999, but the
Committee is concerned that the agency has not enforced these
regulations. FNS is directed to provide a report to the U.S.
Senate and House Committee on Appropriations by December 31,
2001, on how the agency intends to enforce the Buy American
provision of the act that applies to purchases conducted by
schools.
The Committee is concerned about the rising costs of food
and labor to our meal programs. The Committee understands that
the reimbursement rates for school meals are adjusted annually
according to the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
Changes in the labor market may have caused wages for school
food service personnel to increase at a rate faster than the
index benchmark. Furthermore, the reimbursement rate for after
school snacks authorized under the William F. Goodling Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1998 has come under
question as being inadequate to cover the costs of these
snacks. Therefore, the Committee requests that the Secretary
conduct a study and report back to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate no
later than June 30, 2002, on the actual national average cost
of meals served under the authority of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
The Committee also requests that the report discuss any
significant local or regional cost factors that may affect the
sufficiency of the reimbursement rate in those locales.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
[wic]
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $4,043,086,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\............................... 4,137,086,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 4,247,086,000
\1\ Includes up to $19,956,000 for the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program.
\2\ Includes up to $25,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program.
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of
7.25 million participants at an average food cost of $34.72 per
person per month in fiscal year 2002.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through
2003 and adds several provisions to the program. For example,
the Act requires that an individual seeking certification or
recertification in the program must provide documentation of
family income. In addition, the Act permits State agencies to
award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering
the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
weighted average retail price for different brands of formula
in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
Public Law 105-336 also includes many provisions to improve
retailer integrity and help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse
in the program.
The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC (or
WIC-eligible) participants by providing them with coupons to
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and
vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to increase the
awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
Although directly related to the WIC Program, about one-half of
the current FMNP operations are administered by State
departments of agriculture rather than the State WIC agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $4,247,086,000. This amount is $204,000,000
more than the 2001 appropriation and $110,000,000 more than the
budget request.
The WIC Program continues to be a high priority of the
Committee. Since the submission of the President's budget, WIC
participation appears to be above projected levels and economic
forecasts for the coming year suggest program demand will
continue to rise. Accordingly, the Committee provides increased
funding for the WIC Program for fiscal year 2002 to meet
anticipated caseload demand.
The Committee makes available up to $25,000,000, $5,044,000
more than the fiscal year 2001 level, to carry out the WIC
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.
The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure
funding and includes language in the bill earmarking $6,000,000
for WIC electronic benefit transfer systems.
While the Committee supports and encourages State and local
agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of
participation referral to other health care services, it
recognizes the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing
as a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing
demand for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to
clarify that while WIC plays an important role in screening and
referral to other health care services, it was never the
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive
screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner
that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was
it the Committee's intention that WIC State and local agencies
should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating
appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again
includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC
services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not
used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or
activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the
appropriate Federal agency. Within the context of authorized
activities, the Committee notes an Executive Memorandum issued
by the President on December 11, 2000, on the subject of
improving immunization rates for children at risk. The
Committee supports the goal of the Executive Memorandum, but
remains concerned that the delivery of core WIC objectives may
suffer without properly shared responsibilities and resources
from other agencies. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to consult with the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to delineate departmental financial
and operational responsibilities necessary to promote the
objectives of the Executive Memorandum and to provide a report
on this subject to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.
The Committee notes that, in spite of advances in food and
nutrition science, the WIC food prescription has changed little
since 1974. In the past decade, USDA has twice solicited
comments--in 1994, and again in 1998--on a draft policy on food
substitutions to accommodate food preferences and ethnic
cultural eating patterns. The Committee regrets that the
Department has not moved forward with the development of a WIC
food prescription that responds to the needs of the culturally
sensitive populations WIC serves. Further action to respond to
these concerns needs to be taken. The Committee urges the
Department to move expeditiously, in consultation with WIC
public health nutritionists and directors, to develop for
public comment a food prescription rule responding to these
needs and to provide a report to the Committee by January 31,
2002, regarding the status and publication of a culturally
sensitive food prescription.
The Committee strongly supports WIC infant formula rebates
as an effective program cost containment measure, but is aware
of reports that certain health care providers offer short term
supplies to new mothers which may or may not contain infant
formula included in that State's rebate program. It has been
suggested that this practice may result in an infant's reliance
on a non-rebate formula and, consequently, higher program
costs. The Committee requests the Secretary to examine this
issue and report to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House and Senate by March 1, 2002 on any program cost
implications of sole source contracts between pharmaceutical
companies and health care providers that reduce the
effectiveness of the infant formula rebates and on the stated
program goal of enhanced breast feeding.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEFAP
Expenses Amount in Puerto Rico commodity Total
reserve purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001...................... 18,618,228 100,000 1,301,000 100,000 20,119,228
Budget estimate, 2002..................... 19,556,436 1,000,000 1,335,550 100,000 21,991,986
Committee recommendation.................. 19,556,436 100,000 1,335,550 100,000 21,091,986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power.
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible
without food stamp assistance. The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
193, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year
2002.
The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Participating households receive food stamps, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the stamps is paid by the Federal Government and is called the
benefit cost. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition
Service periodically revises household stamp allotments to
reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan. The last
revision was made on October 1, 2000.
State social service agencies assume responsibility for
certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps through
suitable outlets. Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps
as payment for food purchases and forward them to commercial
banks for cash or credit. The stamps flow through the banking
system to the Federal Reserve Bank for redemption out of a
special account maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department. The
major alternative to the paper food stamp system is electronic
benefit transfer [EBT].
By the end of fiscal year 2000, 41 States and the District
of Columbia had operating EBT systems. They are Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. Thirty-seven of these systems are statewide. All other
States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT
systems.
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a
block grant for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico which gives
the commonwealth broad flexibility to establish a nutrition
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs
of its low-income households. However, the commonwealth must
submit its annual plan of operation to the Secretary for
approval. The FAIR Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127, enacted
November 5, 1996, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal
year 2002. In addition to the provision of direct benefits to
the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to fund up to 50
percent of the cost of administering the program. The grant may
also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture and food
distribution in Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase
commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Administrative costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis. Under the Hunger Prevention Act of
1988, a State agency is held liable if its error rate of
overissuances exceeds the lowest achieved national error rate
average plus 1 percent. Liabilities are based on the level of
State issuance and the extent to which the State's error rate
exceeds a tolerance level. State agencies which reduce quality
control error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum
match of 60 percent of their administrative expenses. Also,
State agencies are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of
administering the program on Indian reservations.
State administration also includes State antifraud
activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations
and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills,
training, or experience that will increase their ability to
obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department
of Agriculture implemented a new grant program to States to
assist them in providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends
$21,091,986,000. This is $972,758,000 more than the 2001
appropriated level and $900,000,000 less than the budget
request. Of the amount provided, $100,000,000 is made available
as a contingency reserve. This is $900,000,000 less than the
contingency reserve level proposed in the budget and the same
as the 2001 level.
Included in this amount is up to $3,000,000 to purchase
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations
without competition.
The Committee is aware of a pressing need for
infrastructure development in the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Warehousing facilities on some
reservations do not allow for the proper and efficient storage
and distribution of commodities, and Indian Tribal
Organizations must be able to replace and upgrade equipment
such as tractor trailers and fork lifts. Facilities have not
always been able to keep pace with improvements in the food
package, including the addition of fresh produce and more
frozen foods as program options, which generates the need for
cooler and freezer equipment. Therefore, the Committee directs
the Secretary to conduct an assessment of facility and
equipment needs in FDPIR, and to report to the Committee no
later than December 31, 2001.
Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
must submit for the Secretary's approval a yearly plan that
contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits
under the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico
are provided during the following fiscal year. While the
Committee notes the program flexibility normally afforded to
Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages the Secretary not to
approve any NAP plan that does not require at least 75 percent
of NAP funds to be spent on food at certain stores with point-
of-sales devices.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $139,991,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\............................... 139,991,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 139,991,000
\1\ Does not reflect $5,300,000 rescission of available prior year
appropriations.
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and administrative expenses
for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6,
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition,
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
In fiscal year 2002 approximately 94,400 women, infants,
and young children and 335,600 elderly are authorized to
receive food packages each month. The foods are provided by the
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The 1996 FAIR Act, Public Law 104-127, reauthorizes the
program through fiscal year 2002.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Title II of
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and
appropriated funds for the costs of intrastate storage and
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. Under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-193), the Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP by amending section 201A of the Emergency
Food Assistance Act. While commodities will not be purchased
specifically for soup kitchens and food banks, they will be
eligible to receive commodities through TEFAP.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
In fiscal year 2000, $162,029,525 worth of surplus
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals.
Donations will continue in fiscal year 2001. Precise levels
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2002,
$45,000,000 will be used to help State and local authorities
with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus
commodities to needy individuals. Although the $45,000,000 was
allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds,
each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase
of additional commodities.
The 1996 FAIR Act reauthorizes administrative funding
through fiscal year 2002 and allows these funds to be used for
local repackaging and further processing of commodities high in
nutrient content. The law requires CCC bonus commodities to be
distributed through TEFAP, and reauthorizes funding for the
purchase of TEFAP commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $139,991,000. This amount is the
same as the 2001 funding level and the budget request.
The Committee continues to encourage the Department to
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity
allocations through each of the programs funded under this
account.
The Committee is aware that, notwithstanding the rescission
of $5,300,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the
Department will have sufficient unspent prior-year carryover
balances in fiscal year 2002 both to expand the program in
currently participating states and to admit new states that may
apply for the program. The new states include Washington, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food
products are made available by hunters and other game
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State
inspected facilities and present an additional source of
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide
variety to food assistance programs and, if appropriate, allow
the use of TEFAP administrative funds for this purpose.
FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $150,749,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 150,749,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,749,000
Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--Commodity support for
the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is authorized by titles
III and VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods
provided are used in preparing meals which are served in senior
citizen centers and similar settings or delivered to the
homebound elderly. These meals are the focal point of the
nutrition projects for the elderly which have the dual
objective of promoting better health and reducing the isolation
of old age.
Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are
distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites.
Some States elect to take all of their subsidy in cash and some
States choose to receive a combination of cash and commodities.
The commodities made available to the Nutrition Program for the
Elderly are generally the same as those provided to schools
under the Child Nutrition Programs. In previous years, the
State agencies that elected to receive cash in lieu of
commodities were funded on a payment per meal basis. The Older
Americans Act of 2000, Public Law 106-501, enacted November 13,
2000, revised the funding formula. The Act requires that each
State or grantee receive a proportion of available funds equal
to the proportion of meals served by that State or grantee in
the preceding fiscal year. The Act reauthorizes the program
through 2005.
Pacific Island assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the food donations programs for selected groups, the
Committee recommends $150,749,000. This amount is the same as
the 2001 appropriation and the budget request. Of the amount
recommended by the Committee, $1,079,000 is for the needy
family program and $149,670,000 is for the elderly feeding
program.
food program administration
Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\............................ $116,550,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 125,546,000
Committee recommendation................................ 127,546,000
\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $998,000 from the Economic Research
Service for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public Law 106-387.
\2\ Does not reflect $1,996,000 transferred to the Congressional Hunger
Center Foundation provided by Public Law 106-113.
The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs;
Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program; Nutrition
Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program,
including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the
Emergency Food Assistance Program; and the Food Donations
Programs, including the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and
Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Food Program Administration is to
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $127,546,000. This amount is $10,996,000
more than the 2001 level and $2,000,000 more than the budget
request. Included in this amount is an increase of $2,000,000
for activities to enhance integrity of the National School
Lunch Program.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001.................................... 115,170 (4,257) (119,427)
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 121,563 (4,257) (125,820)
Committee recommendation................................ 121,563 (4,257) (125,820)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with
information on world agricultural production and trade that
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S.
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a
continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout
the world covering some 130 countries.
The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate
these estimates.
In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of
events which may affect the condition and expected production
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States.
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and
related data.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 80 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with
market development cooperators, trade associations, State
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural
products, provides information about foreign importers, and
performs a wide range of market development activities.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program,
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture
export expansion. Through 2000, nonprofit private trade and
producer associations have generated an estimated
$1,361,000,000 in contributions to more than match the
$824,000,000 contributed by FAS to finance overseas market
promotion activities under the Cooperator Program. In addition,
GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the
recent progress of American agriculture in the world
marketplace.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 16
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing
officials in trade promotion.
The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S.
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S.
agricultural exports to third markets.
FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in
its work with foreign countries, international organizations,
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
committee recommendations
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $121,563,000. This is $6,393,000
more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2001 level.
The Committee provides $4,000,000 for the Cochran
Fellowship Program, the same amount as the fiscal year 2001
level and the budget request. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to continue to provide additional support for the
program through the Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging
Markets Program at the fiscal year 1999 level.
The Committee continues to include language in a general
provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up
to $2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject
to documentation.
The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP),
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
The Committee is concerned that the Dairy Export Incentive
Program (DEIP) loses a substantial percentage of its tonnage
every year due to cancellation or nullification of DEIP awards
by foreign buyers or for other reasons beyond the control of
U.S. dairy producers. Because the permitted DEIP tonnage is
strictly limited each year under United States commitments made
to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is vital that this
lost tonnage be reallocated during the applicable export year
under WTO rules so that it can be used, not wasted. Therefore,
the Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to prepare
a plan, after consultation with industry representatives, that
substantially resolves this serious problem, and to report to
the Committee on the plan.
The Committee understands there is a lack of exports from
medium and small producers in rural areas because many of these
producers do not have information available to them regarding
exporting. Therefore, the Committee encourages the USDA's
Foreign Agricultural Service to partner with the South Carolina
Export Consortium, specifically South Carolina State
University, to provide appropriate types of export-related
assistance, which will help small and medium-sized producers
who would not traditionally have the resources to attempt
expansion through international trade.
The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and
other seafood to overseas markets.
To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology.
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the U.S.
fails to participate in such discussions, those attempting to
limit the access to foreign markets by U.S. producers will be
presented an opportunity to undermine confidence in the
benefits and safety of the technology while reducing trade
opportunities for American producers. The Committee directs FAS
to allocate adequate funding to meet the needs of our trading
partners so that officials from the Department of Agriculture
may, when requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety
of the technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory
process.
The Committee urges USDA to continue implementing the
Global Food for Education (GFE) initiative in fiscal year 2002
under its Section 416(b) authority and to make financial
assistance available to intergovernmental organizations,
private voluntary organizations and cooperatives for the
distribution and administrative costs of their GFE programs. In
addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work
with representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
public law 480 title i program account
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001.................................... (159,327) 113,935 1,846
Budget estimate, 2002................................... (139,399) 113,935 2,005
Committee recommendation................................ (159,327) 130,218 2,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 2001 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to
5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and
supporting agricultural development and research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their
agricultural economies.
committee recommendations
For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total
appropriations of $132,223,000. This amount is $16,442,000 more
than the 2001 level and $16,283,000 more than the budget
request. This appropriation will support a Public Law 480,
title I, credit level of $159,327,000 for fiscal year 2002, the
same as the 2001 level and $19,928,000 more than the budget
request. The corresponding loan levels, loan subsidy amounts,
and administrative expenses are reflected in the table above,
as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels.
public law 480 title i ocean freight differential grants
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $20,277,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 20,277,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,277,000
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
committee recommendations
For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the
Committee recommends $20,277,000. This is the same as the
fiscal year 2001 level and the budget request.
public law 480 title II grants
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $835,159,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 835,159,000
Committee recommendation................................ 850,000,000
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of
$850,000,000. This is $14,841,000 more than the fiscal year
2001 level and the budget request.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
[FAIR Act], Public Law 104-127, requires that a minimum of
2.025 million metric tons of commodities be provided each
fiscal year under title II authority, of which 1.55 million
metric tons--three-fourths of the total minimum tonnage--is
designated for development programs that address chronic hunger
and its root causes in areas with inadequate food security.
The Committee expects USAID's administration of Public Law
480 title II to encourage private voluntary organizations
[PVO's], cooperatives, and the World Food Program [WFP] to
generate a sufficient volume of proposals to allocate roughly
three-fourths of the total title II tonnage funded for fiscal
year 2002 for these PVOs, cooperatives, and the WFP for
developmental food security programs.
The Committee recognizes the authority of USAID to waive
this minimum when this volume of commodities cannot be used
effectively and for certain emergencies, but believes this
waiver should be used rarely, and only when emergency needs can
be weighed against concrete proposals for a fully funded
longer-term development program.
The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal
year 2002 to continue the fiscal year 2001 level of funding for
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and
hospitals.
The Committee is aware of the agency's involvement with new
technologies for reducing losses to Public Law 480 title II
shipments which have resulted from leaking vegetable oil
containers. The Committee encourages the agency to continue
this effort and pursue further design and development of
suitable containers that will prevent future losses and enhance
overall program efficiency.
As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a
transfer be deemed appropriate.
commodity credit corporation export loans program account
(export credit programs, gsm-102 and gsm-103)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001...................................... \1\ 3,792,000 304,959 3,812
Budget estimate, 2002..................................... \1\ 3,904,000 265,584 4,014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
guarantees.
In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103
programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a scientific
regulatory agency whose sole mission is to protect and promote
the health and safety of Americans. The Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: To promote the public health by
promptly and efficiently reviewing clinical research and taking
appropriate action on the marketing of regulated products in a
timely manner.
The FDA Foods Program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the U.S. food supply is safe, sanitary,
wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are
safe and properly labeled. The variety and complexity of the
food supply has grown dramatically while new and more complex
safety issues, such as emerging microbial pathogens, natural
toxins, and technological innovations in production and
processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in
keeping the United States food supply among the safest in the
world.
The FDA drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the premarket review and postmarket
surveillance of human, animal and biological products to ensure
their safety and efficacy. For Human Drugs this includes the
review of investigational new drug applications; evaluation of
market applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing. Surveillance
activities are accomplished through review of drug experience
reports, adverse experience reporting and nationwide
inspections and investigations. The Biologics program assures
that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines,
including vaccines to counter bioterrorism activities,
bacterial vaccines, and viral vaccines, are pure, potent, safe,
effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood
banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms
collecting human source plasma, evaluates and licenses
biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases
licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with
vaccine immunization.
The Devices and Radiological program ensures safety and
effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. Postmarket surveillance is carried out
to ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of marketed
devices and radiation emitting products once approved. In
addition, the program enforces quality standards under the
Mammography Quality Standards Act. Medical devices include
thousands of products from thermometers and contact lenses to
heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and
video display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user inspection certification Total
fees fees fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................... $1,066,173 $149,273 $15,128 $5,992 $1,236,566
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\.................. 1,173,673 161,716 15,590 6,181 1,357,160
Committee recommendation \3\............... 1,182,670 161,716 15,590 6,181 1,364,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $22,950,000 contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000 pursuant
to Public Law 106-387.
\2\ Includes Freedom of Information Act and proposed Human Subject Protection and Bioterrorism transfers.
Excludes $2,950,000 proposed contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000,
and $20,000,000 in collections from proposed legislation to authorize new user fees.
\3\ Includes Freedom of Information Act transfer.
committee recommendations
For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,182,670,000. This amount is $116,497,000
more than the 2001 level and $8,997,000 more than the budget
request. The Committee also recommends $161,716,000 in
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, and
$15,590,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee
collections, as assumed in the President's budget. These
amounts are $12,443,000 and $462,000 more than the 2001 levels,
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2001 enacted 2002 request recommendation \3\
\1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods....................................................... 284,641 306,105 310,926
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].... 124,842 134,071 137,214
Field activities........................................ 159,799 172,034 173,712
(Food safety initiatives)........................... (189,626) (204,679) (204,679)
===============================================
Human drugs................................................. 217,768 240,141 244,390
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER].......... 138,755 151,530 154,003
Orphan product grants................................... 12,507 12,507 14,207
Field activities........................................ 66,506 76,104 76,180
===============================================
Biologics................................................... 108,097 119,463 120,087
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]..... 86,341 93,521 94,120
Field activities........................................ 21,756 25,942 25,967
===============================================
Animal drugs................................................ 63,928 81,109 81,182
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].................... 48,917 54,323 54,379
Field activities........................................ 15,011 26,786 26,803
-----------------------------------------------
(Food safety initiatives)........................... (15,315) (17,379) (17,379)
===============================================
Medical and radiological devices............................ 164,844 178,572 178,761
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]...... 122,217 130,527 130,667
Field activities........................................ 42,627 48,045 48,094
===============================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........... 35,490 36,943 36,984
(Food safety initiatives)............................... (2,993) (3,485) (3,485)
===============================================
Other activities................................................ 66,731 80,666 79,666
-----------------------------------------------
Office of the Commissioner.................................. 9,008 11,908 10,908
Office of Management and Systems............................ 29,291 39,359 39,359
Office of Senior Associate Commissioner..................... 7,772 8,039 8,039
Office of International and Constituent Relations........... 6,370 6,670 6,670
Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning................. 7,453 7,853 7,853
Central services............................................ 6,837 6,837 6,837
(Food safety initiatives)............................... (8,740) (9,264) (9,264)
===============================================
Rent and related activities..................................... 25,798 31,798 31,798
===============================================
Rental payments to GSA.......................................... 98,876 98,876 98,876
===============================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.... 1,066,173 1,173,673 1,182,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $22,950,000 contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000 pursuant
to Public Law 106-387.
\2\ Includes Freedom of Information Act and proposed Human Subject Protection and Bioterrorism transfers.
Excludes $2,950,000 proposed contingent appropriation to carry out the Medicine and Drug Safety Act of 2000,
and $20,000,000 in collections from proposed legislation to authorize new user fees.
\3\ Includes Freedom of Information Act transfer.
The Committee recommends the full increase in budget
authority requested in the budget for FDA salaries and expenses
activities, as follows: $40,000,000 to cover pay-related
increases; $15,000,000 for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE) prevention, surveillance and compliance activities;
$10,297,000 to increase the number of domestic and foreign
inspections and expand import coverage in all product areas;
$10,000,000 to reduce adverse events associated with the use of
medical products; $10,000,000 to better protect the rights and
welfare of volunteers and the integrity of data in clinical
research trials; $9,400,000 to expand food safety efforts;
$8,300,000 to begin acquisition of a new integrated financial
system; and $6,000,000 for one-time costs to equip and occupy
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) laboratory
portion of the new facility at White Oak in Adelphi, MD.
As requested in the budget, the Committee makes available
for 2 years the $6,000,000 provided for the relocation of the
CDER laboratory functions to White Oak.
For FDA rental payments to the General Services
Administration (GSA), the Committee recommends new budget
authority of $98,867,000, the same as the 2001 and budget
request levels.
Food safety.--An increase of $18,133,000 from the fiscal
year 2001 level is recommended by the Committee for FDA food
safety activities, bringing total funding for food safety to
$234,807,000.
Within the total funding available, at least $2,100,000 is
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2001
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2001
level for FDA to continue its contract with New Mexico State
University's Physical Science Laboratory to conduct method
evaluation of rapid testing methods of fresh fruits and
vegetables for microbial contamination. The funds are to be
provided from the total sum appropriated for food safety
initiatives.
The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC)
and its work in food safety technology verification and
education.
With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in
food safety should continue among government, academia, and
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST)
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to
maintain at least $3,000,000 as the annual base level of
funding for the National Center to continue the important work
done there.
In addition, the funding provided for food safety will
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current
contract funds 100 inspections, approximately 90 seafood/HACCP
inspections and 60 other food inspections, at a cost of
approximately $121,000. The contract extension is scheduled to
begin July 1, 2001, for approximately $221,884, and will fund
over 250 inspections. The establishments to be inspected will
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
Included in the total amount provided for food safety is
$1,000,000 to analyze risks associated with emerging biotech
foods and develop criteria for evaluating the safety of biotech
foods used for animal feeds.
Seafood Safety.--Two recent General Accounting Office (GAO)
reports on the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy
of the FDA efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood,
including shellfish. Both reports found FDA's seafood
inspection system provides consumers with inadequate protection
for seafood-related foodborne illness. The Committee asks FDA
to report to the Committee by January 1, 2002 regarding
implementation of recommendations by GAO, and the timetable for
bringing all FDA-regulated seafood processors into compliance
with HACCP. The Committee also asks FDA to report whether its
existing authorities and appropriations are sufficient for FDA
to accomplish its food safety mission. The Committee urges FDA
to promote the development of new food safety technologies such
as irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
The Committee is also concerned that FDA has not taken
effective action to address foodborne illness risks from the
consumption of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is
concerned that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's
(ISSC) proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness
due to consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw
shellfish may not effectively address public health concerns.
Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to report to the
Committee by March 1, 2002 regarding the effectiveness of
existing and proposed measures by the FDA and ISSC to ensure
the safety of raw seafood intended for human consumption. This
report should include FDA's assessment of the risk of illness
from consuming of raw seafood and the costs, benefits, and
feasibility of requiring post-harvest treatment for raw seafood
intended for human consumption.
Latex Allergies.---The Committee recognizes the increasing
prevalence of latex allergies. These allergies in some
instances can be deadly. Some individuals with latex allergies
can suffer an allergic reaction when they come in contact with
food that has been prepared by food handlers using latex
gloves. Consumers have reported allergic reactions caused by
food handled with latex gloves to the FDA Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, but FDA has not responded even
though it acknowledges the health hazard posed by food handlers
wearing latex gloves in the 1999 Food Code Annex 3 3-3-4.15; 3-
304.15. Given this, the Committee directs the FDA to report
back within 9 months of the enactment of this Act to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriation a full plan to eliminate
exposure to latex from food handling. The Committee also
encourages the FDA to add latex to its priority list of food
allergens.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring Service (NARMS) and its collaborative
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas
of government to result in the most unbiased presentation of
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health.
The FDA is directed to report to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate by May 2002 on the
activities of the NARMS including the interagency agreements
and interactions with non-governmental institutions.
Orphan Products Grants.---Included in the Human Drugs
increase is an additional $2,000,000 for the Orphan Products
Grants Program. This will fund a total grants level of
$14,207,000 for fiscal year 2002, a $1,700,000 increase from
the fiscal year 2001 level. Also provided is $2,835,000 to
administer the Orphan Products Grant Program, an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level.
Dietary Supplements.--An adverse event reporting (AER)
system is essential to help FDA ensure the safety of dietary
supplements available to American consumers. To enhance FDA's
efforts to identify and respond to health problems potentially
linked to the consumption of dietary supplements, the Committee
recommends a total increase of $3,000,000 to strengthen FDA's
data collection and evaluation efforts associated with adverse
events associated with dietary supplements. This amount is
$2,000,000 above the $1,000,000 associated with dietary
supplements proposed in the budget increase for AER.
FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze
specific components in ingredients, including botanical
ingredients, is an essential component of research and
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee provides
$2,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2002 to
continue the review of botanicals in dietary supplements. This
work is being carried out by FDA in collaboration with the
National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, MS.
Rent payments.--The Committee recommends $98,876,000 for
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA], the same level as proposed in the budget and 2001 level.
Gene Therapy Patient Tracking System.--The Committee is
concerned about FDA's delay in responding to the fiscal year
1995 Agriculture Appropriations language requiring a gene
therapy individual patient tracking system. The report
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations
bill (Public Law 106-387) contained a requirement that FDA
submit a detailed budget and plan for enactment of this system
by January 2001. As of July 2001, a report responding to the
Committee's directive has not been received. In addition, the
Committee notes that FDA has not complied with the original
language requiring individual tracking, as opposed to another
adverse event reporting system. Given the length of time FDA
has had to develop such a tracking system, and the recent
reported deaths of gene therapy patients, the Committee
provides an increase of $500,000 to the Center for Biologics
and directs FDA to modify its gene therapy system so that it
meets Congressional intent to track individual patient's health
status both in the short- and long-term. The Committee directs
FDA to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriation on the establishment of this new
tracking system, its implementation and funding matters.
Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency
representatives may perform this service.
The Committee commends FDA for its ``Draft Guidance for
Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or
Have Note Been Developed Using Bioengineering'' (66 Fed. Reg.
4839), released on January 18, 2001. The Committee urges FDA to
expeditiously publish a final version of this guidance.
Blood product safety.--The Committee is concerned FDA has
not moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to require
manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and prompt
patient notification of adverse events. The Committee urges FDA
to complete implementation of this important blood product
safety mechanism.
Reused Medical Devices.--It has come to the Committee's
attention that certain reprocessors of medical devices are
obtaining devices for reprocessing by sorting through medical
waste. The Committee directs FDA to take enforcement action
against reprocessors using inappropriate and unsanitary methods
of collection of devices for reprocessing and to further ensure
that all reprocessors are aware of what constitutes appropriate
and sanitary collection.
The Committee recognizes the important role that FDA plays
in ensuring that every medical device used on a patient in the
United States is both safe and effective for its intended use.
Adhering to this principle, the FDA has issued new guidance for
the reprocessing of single-use medical devices. The Committee
is concerned that the FDA may consider allowing a single
premarket submission for reprocessing of multiple models of a
certain medical devices. FDA's own research indicates that
minor modifications to a device can substantially alter the
device's properties with regard to sterilization and
reprocessing. This was stated by FDA's own scientists at the
1999 AAMI/FDA Conference entitled ``The reuse of single-use
devices.'' Therefore, the Committee urges the FDA to require a
premarket submission for every model that is to be reprocessed,
if an application was required for the original manufactured
device.
Tissue Processing.--Over the past several years, there has
been a growing concern about the transmission of CJD, vCJD and
its related non-human counterpart mad cow disease. Processing
multiple tissues from multiple donors could pose a substantial
risk of transmitting CJD to those receiving tissue transplants.
Pooling or batch processing could also result in transmission
of many other diseases. For this reason, the American
Association of Tissue Banks prohibits pooling of tissues for
its members. The FDA has issued new rules regarding tissue
processing. Those rules include a prohibition on pooling tissue
from multiple donors but allow for a waiver under certain
circumstances. FDA acknowledges that there is no scientific
consensus at the present on how to inactivate CJD prions. Given
this, the Committee believes FDA should consider not granting
proposed waivers from the pooling prohibition, unless the
patient's safety can be guaranteed. The Committee also directs
FDA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation
prior to granting such a waiver.
Recently, the FDA instituted new regulations for tissue
processors. All tissue banks are now required to register with
the FDA. The number registering is substantially larger than
the number known to exist prior to this rule. This means that a
large number of facilities have been operating without any
inspections by the FDA or another accrediting body. Therefore,
the conditions under which tissues have been processed in these
facilities is unknown. The Committee encourages FDA to move
expeditiously to inspect all tissue facilities that have never
been inspected by the agency by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Office of Generic Drugs.--The Committee remains concerned
by the high price of prescription drugs and the inability of
many Americans to obtain necessary medications without
reductions in other quality of life areas. In order to help
provide more accessible and affordable medications, the
Committee supports timely approval of generic drugs and
provides $18,100,000, an increase of $2,700,000 over the fiscal
year 2001 level and $2,000,000 more than the budget request for
the Office of Generic Drugs.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. A recent General Accounting Office
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein
concentrate imports. The Committee is concerned with FDA's
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein
concentrate in standardized cheese. The Committee requests a
report on FDA's current work as it relates to enforcement of
standards of identity as it relates to cheese by May 1, 2002.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee is concerned that
the FDA has paid insufficient attention to gender-based
research. Last year, GAO reported a serious disproportionate
impact on women of drugs withdrawn from the market for safety
reasons. To address this issue, the Committee directs FDA to
continue piloting the drug application database system that
collects demographic information for specific New Drug
Applications (NDAs) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER). Additionally, the FDA should study the
possibility of developing an Agency-wide system by commencing a
capability assessment for each Center and the Office of the
Commissioner to review currently available critical clinical
trial databases, coordinate data collection and identify areas
in which data gaps exist. The Committee directs FDA to provide
the Committee with the assessment report of the Agency-wide
system and the status of the pilot program within CDER by June
3, 2002.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is aware
that for the last several years, premarket approval
applications for breakthrough medical technologies have taken
more than a year despite the 180-day statutory maximum for
approval or denial of such applications. Moreover, the medical
technology industry has doubled the investment in research and
development in the last decade. Such research and development
investment promises to yield numerous and dramatic new
technologies which must come through FDA's review process. As
requested in the budget, the Committee provides an increase of
$13,917,000 from the fiscal year 2001 level for FDA's Devices
and Radiological Health program area. This amount is consistent
with agency estimates for bringing review times within
statutory requirements in the short term. The Center for
Devices and Radiological Health is directed to develop
accountability measures to ensure that these funds are used to
support sustained progress toward compliance with statutory
review times in the long term.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $31,281,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 34,281,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,281,000
In addition to Washington, D.C., area laboratories which
are in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other
locations around the country, including regular field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Continued
repairs, modifications, improvements and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and
facilities, the Committee recommends $34,281,000. This amount
is $3,000,000 more than the 2001 appropriation and the same as
the budget request.
Included in the amount provided is $8,281,000 for repair
and improvement projects; $3,000,000 to continue renovation of
the National Center for Toxicology Research; and $23,000,000 to
complete construction of the Los Angeles, CA, replacement
laboratory and office space project.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $67,850,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 70,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,400,000
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services,
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance.
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity
options markets contribute toward better production and
financial planning, more efficient distribution and
consumption, and more economical marketing.
Programs in support of the overall mission include market
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services.
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
committee recommendations
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
recommends $70,400,000. The amount provided is $2,550,000 more
than the 2001 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2001........................................ ($36,719,000)
Budget estimate, 2002................................... (36,700,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (36,700,000)
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $36,700,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. This is $19,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 level and
the same as the budget request.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections 701-731 of the general provisions are essentially
the same as those included in the fiscal year 2001 and previous
years' appropriations acts.
In addition, the Committee recommends the following
provisions:
Section 732 to allow the use of remaining Public Law 480
Title III balances for Title II of the program, notwithstanding
Section 412 of Public Law 480.
Section 733 to allow up to $5,000,000 for administrative
costs associated with the distribution of commodities. The
Committee notes the high volume of surplus commodities recently
made available through Section 32, and other authorities, and
expects the Secretary to make transfers under this section in
the event high levels of surplus commodities continue to be
made available.
Section 734 to provide funds to carry out the Conservation
Reserve Program. The Committee is aware that the estimated
Conservation Reserve Program enrollments in fiscal year 2002
include 816,000 acres of previously enrolled lands which would
require very limited resources for technical assistance. Under
the authorities provided by this section, the Secretary is
directed that any new enrollments of Conservation Reserve
Program acreage made possible by this section shall be limited
to acreage enrolled in continuous sign up, the conservation
reserve enhancement program, or the farmable wetland pilot
program.
Section 735 to allow approval of rural development programs
for certain purposes in the city of St. Joseph, Missouri.
Section 736 to amend the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act to allow proprietary centers to participate in the
Child and Adult Care Feeding Program if at least 25 percent of
the children served meet the income eligibility criteria for
free or reduced-price meals.
Section 737 to provide $150,000 for erosion control and
channel bank protection at Mallard Pointe, Madison County,
Mississippi.
Section 738 to establish a pilot conservation program in
the Illinois River Basin designed to enhance soil, water
(including wetlands), and wildlife habitat in the Basin in
cooperation with the State of Illinois. The Secretary should
provide a report to the Appropriations Committees of the House
and Senate by December 1, 2001 which outlines the Federal-State
plan, Federal funding sources and levels, and implementation
dates for the program.
Section 739 to provide $450,000 for a conservation project
in the vicinity of Jamestown, Rhode Island.
Section 740 to provide funds for a rural development
project. The Committee is aware of the economic challenges
facing rural America and the added difficulties resulting from
rising energy costs. The Committee encourages the development
of business opportunities designed to meet growing energy needs
and provides $3,000,000 specifically for the application for
development of an agricultural production and energy-related
business venture in South Dakota. The Committee expects that
grant funds up to this amount be made available for purposes of
this venture to the extent these funds are matched by resources
from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Department is expected
to apply established review procedures when considering this
application.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2002, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2002, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2002 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2002 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2002:
Dairy indemnity program; and
Bill Emerson and Mickey LeLand Hunger fellowships.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported, S. 1191, an original Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, 2002, subject to amendment and subject to
its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum
being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
(a) Grant authority and institution eligibility
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) any other private organization providing
nonresidential child care or day care outside school
hours for school children, if--
(i) during the period beginning on the date
of enactment of this clause and ending on
September 30, [2001] 2002, at least 25 percent
of the children served by the organization meet
the income eligibility criteria established
under section 1758(b) of this title for free or
reduced price meals; or
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2002: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies:
General purpose, non-defense............................ 16,137 16,137 NA NA
General purpose......................................... NA NA 16,041 \1\ 16,041
Mandatory............................................... 43,112 43,112 33,847 33,847
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 41,538
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,572
2004.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 758
2005.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 401
2006 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 612
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 NA 19,744 NA 16,241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2002
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2001 Budget estimate Committee -------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2001
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary.................................. 2,908 2,992 2,992 +84 .................
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist...................................... 7,446 7,648 7,648 +202 .................
National Appeals Division............................ 12,394 12,766 12,766 +372 .................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis................ 6,750 6,978 6,978 +228 .................
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 10,029 10,261 10,261 +232 .................
Common computing environment..................... 39,912 59,369 59,369 +19,457 .................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 5,160 5,335 5,335 +175 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations........................ 81,691 102,357 102,357 +20,666 .................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..... 628 647 647 +19 .................
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments. 182,345 187,581 187,581 +5,236 .................
Payments to GSA...................................... (125,266) (130,266) (130,266) (+5,000) .................
Building operations and maintenance.................. (31,136) (31,372) (31,372) (+236) .................
Repairs, renovations, and construction............... (25,943) (25,943) (25,943) ................. .................
Hazardous materials management........................... 15,665 15,665 15,665 ................. .................
Departmental administration.............................. 35,931 37,079 37,079 +1,148 .................
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers.............. 2,993 2,993 3,493 +500 +500
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 3,560 3,684 3,684 +124 .................
Relations...............................................
Office of Communications................................. 8,604 8,894 8,894 +290 .................
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 68,715 70,839 70,839 +2,124 .................
Office of the General Counsel............................ 31,012 32,627 32,627 +1,615 .................
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and 555 573 573 +18 .................
Economics...............................................
Economic Research Service................................ 66,891 67,200 67,200 +309 .................
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 100,550 113,786 113,786 +13,236 .................
Census of Agriculture................................ (14,967) (25,350) (25,350) (+10,383) .................
Agricultural Research Service............................ 896,835 915,591 1,004,738 +107,903 +89,147
Buildings and facilities............................. 74,037 30,462 99,625 +25,588 +69,163
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service............... 970,872 946,053 1,104,363 +133,491 +158,310
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service:
Research and education activities.................... 505,079 407,319 542,580 +37,501 +135,261
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.......... (7,100) (7,100) (7,100) ................. .................
Extension activities................................. 432,475 413,404 434,038 +1,563 +20,634
Integrated activities................................ 41,849 41,849 42,350 +501 +501
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 979,403 862,572 1,018,968 +39,565 +156,396
Extension Service.................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 634 654 654 +20 .................
Regulatory Programs.....................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses................................ 529,397 702,925 602,754 +73,357 -100,171
AQI user fees........................................ (84,813) (84,813) (84,813) ................. .................
Buildings and facilities............................. 9,848 5,189 5,189 -4,659 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.. 539,245 708,114 607,943 +68,698 -100,171
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services................................... 65,191 71,430 71,430 +6,239 .................
Standardization user fees........................ (4,000) (5,000) (5,000) (+1,000) .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees (60,596) (60,596) (60,596) ................. .................
collected)..........................................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply 13,438 13,874 13,874 +436 .................
(transfer from section 32)..........................
Payments to states and possessions................... 1,347 1,347 1,347 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service.............. 79,976 86,651 86,651 +6,675 .................
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses................................ 31,350 32,907 34,000 +2,650 +1,093
Inspection and weighing services..................... (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................. .................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............ 459 476 476 +17 .................
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 695,171 715,542 715,747 +20,576 +205
Lab accreditation fees \1\........................... (998) (1,000) (1,000) (+2) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service.......... 695,171 715,542 715,747 +20,576 +205
==============================================================================================
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing....... 3,899,158 3,999,886 4,216,219 +317,061 +216,333
==============================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 588 606 606 +18 .................
Agricultural Services...................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses................................ 826,563 939,030 939,030 +112,467 .................
(Transfer from export loans)......................... (588) (790) (790) (+202) .................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)....................... (813) (972) (972) (+159) .................
(Transfer from ACIF)................................. (264,731) (272,595) (272,595) (+7,864) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts.......... (266,132) (274,357) (274,357) (+8,225) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, salaries and expenses....................... (1,092,695) (1,213,387) (1,213,387) (+120,692) .................
State mediation grants............................... 2,993 2,993 3,993 +1,000 +1,000
Dairy indemnity program.............................. 450 100 100 -350 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency...................... 830,006 942,123 943,123 +113,117 +1,000
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct....................................... (127,722) (128,000) (146,966) (+19,244) (+18,966)
Guaranteed................................... (868,086) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (+131,914) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... (995,808) (1,128,000) (1,146,966) (+151,158) (+18,966)
Farm operating loans:
Direct....................................... (522,891) (600,000) (611,198) (+88,307) (+11,198)
Unsubsidized guaranteed...................... (1,075,468) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (+424,532) .................
Subsidized guaranteed........................ (369,100) (500,000) (505,531) (+136,431) (+5,531)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... (1,967,459) (2,600,000) (2,616,729) (+649,270) (+16,729)
Indian tribe land acquisition loans.............. (2,002) (2,000) (2,000) (-2) .................
Emergency disaster loans......................... (24,947) (25,000) (25,000) (+53) .................
Boll weevil eradication loans.................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations..................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (+800,479) (+35,695)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct....................................... 13,756 3,366 3,866 -9,890 +500
Guaranteed................................... 4,427 4,500 4,500 +73 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 18,183 7,866 8,366 -9,817 +500
Farm operating loans:
Direct....................................... 47,251 53,580 54,580 +7,329 +1,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed...................... 14,738 52,650 52,650 +37,912 .................
Subsidized guaranteed........................ 30,119 67,800 68,550 +38,431 +750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 92,108 174,030 175,780 +83,672 +1,750
Indian tribe land acquisition.................... 322 118 118 -204 .................
Emergency disaster loans......................... 6,120 3,363 3,363 -2,757 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies.......................... 116,733 185,377 187,627 +70,894 +2,250
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)........... 264,731 272,595 272,595 +7,864 .................
Administrative expenses.......................... 4,130 8,000 8,000 +3,870 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses........................... 268,861 280,595 280,595 +11,734 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund...... 385,594 465,972 468,222 +82,628 +2,250
(Loan authorization)....................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (+800,479) (+35,695)
==============================================================================================
Total, Farm Service Agency..................... 1,215,600 1,408,095 1,411,345 +195,745 +3,250
==============================================================================================
Risk Management Agency................................... 65,453 74,752 74,752 +9,299 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs.................... 1,281,641 1,483,453 1,486,703 +205,062 +3,250
==============================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal crop insurance corporation fund.............. 2,804,660 3,037,000 3,037,000 +232,340 .................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses................ 25,264,441 23,116,000 23,116,000 -2,148,441 .................
Operations and maintenance for hazardous waste (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................. .................
management (limitation on administrative expenses)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations.............................. 28,069,101 26,153,000 26,153,000 -1,916,101 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs............ 33,249,900 31,636,339 31,855,922 -1,393,978 +219,583
(By transfer)................................ (266,132) (274,357) (274,357) (+8,225) .................
(Loan authorization)......................... (3,090,216) (3,855,000) (3,890,695) (+800,479) (+35,695)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)...... (108,059) (108,059) (108,059) ................. .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 709 730 730 +21 .................
Environment.............................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations.............................. 712,545 773,454 802,454 +89,909 +29,000
Watershed surveys and planning....................... 10,844 10,960 10,960 +116 .................
Watershed and flood prevention operations............ 99,224 100,413 100,413 +1,189 .................
Watershed rehabilitation program..................... ................. ................. 10,000 +10,000 +10,000
Resource conservation and development................ 41,923 43,048 48,048 +6,125 +5,000
Forestry incentives program.......................... 6,311 ................. 7,811 +1,500 +7,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service...... 870,847 927,875 979,686 +108,839 +51,811
==============================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs............. 871,556 928,605 980,416 +108,860 +51,811
==============================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 604 623 623 +19 .................
Rural Development:
Rural community advancement program.................. 760,864 692,125 1,004,125 +243,261 +312,000
(By transfer)........................................ ................. ................. (13,000) (+13,000) (+13,000)
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses............................ 130,084 133,722 133,722 +3,638 .................
(Transfer from RHIF)............................. (408,333) (419,741) (422,241) (+13,908) (+2,500)
(Transfer from RDLFP)............................ (3,632) (3,733) (3,733) (+101) .................
(Transfer from RETLP)............................ (34,640) (35,604) (36,000) (+1,360) (+396)
(Transfer from RTB).............................. (2,993) (3,082) (3,082) (+89) .................
(Transfer from TLP).............................. ................. ................. (2,000) (+2,000) (+2,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses............................. (579,682) (595,882) (600,778) (+21,096) (+4,896)
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Development....................... 890,948 825,847 1,137,847 +246,899 +312,000
==============================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family (sec. 502)..................... (1,064,651) (1,064,650) (1,095,046) (+30,395) (+30,396)
Unsubsidized guaranteed.................. (3,136,429) (3,137,968) (3,137,968) (+1,539) .................
Housing repair (sec. 504).................... (32,324) (32,324) (32,324) ................. .................
Rental housing (sec. 515).................... (114,070) (114,068) (114,068) (-2) .................
Site loans (sec. 524)........................ (5,152) (5,090) (5,090) (-62) .................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)... (99,780) (99,770) (99,770) (-10) .................
Multi-family housing credit sales............ (1,779) (1,778) (1,778) (-1) .................
Single family housing credit sales........... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................. .................
Self-help housing land development fund...... (4,998) (5,000) (5,000) (+2) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations................. (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (+31,861) (+30,396)
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502)..................... 170,983 140,108 144,108 -26,875 +4,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed...................... 7,384 40,166 40,166 +32,782 .................
Housing repair (sec. 504).................... 11,456 10,386 10,386 -1,070 .................
Rental housing (sec. 515).................... 56,202 48,274 48,274 -7,928 .................
Site loans (sec. 524)........................ ................. 28 28 +28 .................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)... 1,517 3,921 3,921 +2,404 .................
Multi-family housing credit sales............ 872 750 750 -122 .................
Self-help housing land development fund...... 278 254 254 -24 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies...................... 248,692 243,887 247,887 -805 +4,000
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD).... 408,333 419,741 422,241 +13,908 +2,500
Rental assistance program:
(Sec. 521)................................... 672,604 687,604 702,604 +30,000 +15,000
(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)).......................... 5,900 5,900 5,900 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program........... 678,504 693,504 708,504 +30,000 +15,000
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund........ 1,335,529 1,357,132 1,378,632 +43,103 +21,500
(Loan authorization)................... (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (+31,861) (+30,396)
==============================================================================================
Mutual and self-help housing grants.................. 33,925 33,925 35,000 +1,075 +1,075
Rural housing assistance grants...................... 43,903 38,914 38,914 -4,989 .................
Farm labor program account........................... 29,934 28,431 28,431 -1,503 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments...................... 107,762 101,270 102,345 -5,417 +1,075
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service....................... 1,443,291 1,458,402 1,480,977 +37,686 +22,575
(Loan authorization)........................... (4,469,183) (4,470,648) (4,501,044) (+31,861) (+30,396)
==============================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (38,172) (38,171) (38,171) (-1) .................
Loan subsidy..................................... 19,433 16,494 16,494 -2,939 .................
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD)......... 3,632 3,733 3,733 +101 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund............. 23,065 20,227 20,227 -2,838 .................
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (14,969) (14,966) (14,966) (-3) .................
Direct subsidy................................... 3,902 3,616 3,616 -286 .................
Rural cooperative development grants................. 6,486 6,486 8,000 +1,514 +1,514
Rural empowerment zones and enterprise community ................. 14,967 14,967 +14,967 .................
grants..............................................
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.......... 33,453 45,296 46,810 +13,357 +1,514
(Loan authorization)........................... (53,141) (53,137) (53,137) (-4) .................
==============================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans
Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent........................ (121,128) (121,107) (121,107) (-21) .................
Direct, Municipal rate................... (294,358) (294,358) (500,000) (+205,642) (+205,642)
Direct, FFB.............................. (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (2,600,000) (+1,000,000) (+1,000,000)
Direct, Treasury rate.................... (500,000) (500,000) (750,000) (+250,000) (+250,000)
Guaranteed electric...................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... (2,615,486) (2,615,465) (4,071,107) (+1,455,621) (+1,455,642)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent........................ (74,835) (74,827) (74,827) (-8) .................
Direct, Treasury rate.................... (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) ................. .................
Direct, FFB.............................. (120,000) (120,000) (120,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... (494,835) (494,827) (494,827) (-8) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations............. (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934) (+1,455,613) (+1,455,642)
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent........................ 12,064 3,609 3,609 -8,455 .................
Guaranteed electric...................... 10 80 80 +70 .................
Direct, Municipal rate................... 20,458 ................. ................. -20,458 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... 32,532 3,689 3,689 -28,843 .................
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent........................ 7,753 1,736 1,736 -6,017 .................
Direct, Treasury rate.................... ................. 300 300 +300 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... 7,753 2,036 2,036 -5,717 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies.................. 40,285 5,725 5,725 -34,560 .................
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to 34,640 35,604 36,000 +1,360 +396
RD).........................................
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Electrification and 74,925 41,329 41,725 -33,200 +396
Telecommunications Loans Program Account..
(Loan authorization)................... (3,110,321) (3,110,292) (4,565,934) (+1,455,613) (+1,455,642)
==============================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (174,615) ................. (174,615) ................. (+174,615)
Direct loan subsidy.............................. 2,584 ................. 3,737 +1,153 +3,737
RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD)..... 2,993 3,082 3,082 +89 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 5,577 3,082 6,819 +1,242 +3,737
High energy costs grants (by transfer)............... ................. (24,000) (24,000) (+24,000) .................
Distance learning and telemedicine program:
Distance learning and telemedicine direct loan... (400,000) (300,000) (300,000) (-100,000) .................
Broadband telecommunications direct loans........ ................. (100,000) (100,000) (+100,000) .................
Grants/loans subsidy costs....................... 26,941 26,941 51,941 +25,000 +25,000
Local Television loan program account:
(Loan authorization)............................. ................. ................. (322,580) (+322,580) (+322,580)
Direct loan subsidy.............................. ................. ................. 25,000 +25,000 +25,000
LTLP administration expenses (transfer to RD).... ................. ................. 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service................. 107,443 71,352 127,485 +20,042 +56,133
(Loan authorization)....................... (3,684,936) (3,510,292) (5,463,129) (+1,778,193) (+1,952,837)
==============================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community 2,475,739 2,401,520 2,793,742 +318,003 +392,222
Development Programs..........................
(By transfer).............................. (449,598) (486,160) (504,056) (+54,458) (+17,896)
(Loan authorization)....................... (8,207,260) (8,034,077) (10,017,310) (+1,810,050) (+1,983,233)
==============================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 569 587 587 +18 .................
Consumer Services.......................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs............................. 4,407,445 4,729,490 4,746,038 +338,593 +16,548
Transfer from section 32......................... 5,127,579 5,357,256 5,340,708 +213,129 -16,548
Discretionary spending........................... 6,486 2,000 500 -5,986 -1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs................ 9,541,510 10,088,746 10,087,246 +545,736 -1,500
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, 4,043,086 4,137,086 4,247,086 +204,000 +110,000
infants, and children (WIC).........................
Food stamp program:
Expenses......................................... 18,618,228 19,556,436 19,556,436 +938,208 .................
Reserve.......................................... 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 ................. -900,000
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico............. 1,301,000 1,335,550 1,335,550 +34,550 .................
The emergency food assistance program............ 100,000 100,000 100,000 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program...................... 20,119,228 21,991,986 21,091,986 +972,758 -900,000
Commodity assistance program......................... 139,991 139,991 139,991 ................. .................
Rescission....................................... ................. -5,300 -5,300 -5,300 .................
Food donations programs:
Needy family program............................. 1,081 1,081 1,081 ................. .................
Elderly feeding program.......................... 149,668 149,668 149,668 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food donations programs................. 150,749 150,749 150,749 ................. .................
Food program administration.......................... 116,550 125,546 127,546 +10,996 +2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service.................. 34,111,114 36,628,804 35,839,304 +1,728,190 -789,500
==============================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs............ 34,111,683 36,629,391 35,839,891 +1,728,208 -789,500
==============================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.......... 115,170 121,563 121,563 +6,393 .................
(Transfer from export loans)......................... (3,224) (3,224) (3,224) ................. .................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)....................... (1,033) (1,033) (1,033) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program level............................... (119,427) (125,820) (125,820) (+6,393) .................
==============================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Program account:
Loan authorization, direct \2\................... (159,327) (139,399) (159,327) ................. (+19,928)
Loan subsidy..................................... 113,935 113,935 130,218 +16,283 +16,283
Ocean freight differential....................... 20,277 20,277 20,277 ................. .................
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level.................................... (835,159) (835,159) (850,000) (+14,841) (+14,841)
Appropriation.................................... 835,159 835,159 850,000 +14,841 +14,841
Salaries and expenses:
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).......... 1,033 1,033 1,033 ................. .................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............ 813 972 972 +159 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 1,846 2,005 2,005 +159 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level.............................. (835,159) (835,159) (850,000) (+14,841) (+14,841)
Appropriation.............................. 971,217 971,376 1,002,500 +31,283 +31,124
==============================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).......... 3,224 3,224 3,224 ................. .................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............ 588 790 790 +202 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account........ 3,812 4,014 4,014 +202 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related 1,090,199 1,096,953 1,128,077 +37,878 +31,124
Programs......................................
(By transfer).............................. (4,257) (4,257) (4,257) ................. .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE VI--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.............. 1,066,173 1,173,673 1,182,670 +116,497 +8,997
Prescriptions drug user fee act--fee collections..... (149,273) (161,716) (161,716) (+12,443) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... (1,215,446) (1,335,389) (1,344,386) (+128,940) (+8,997)
Mammography clinics inspection fee collections....... (15,128) (15,590) (15,590) (+462) .................
Export and certification fee collections............. (5,992) (6,181) (6,181) (+189) .................
Limitation on payments to GSA........................ (104,736) (105,116) (105,116) (+380) .................
Drug reimportation................................... ................. 2,950 ................. ................. -2,950
Buildings and facilities................................. 31,281 34,281 34,281 +3,000 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug Administration................ 1,097,454 1,210,904 1,216,951 +119,497 +6,047
==============================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................... 67,850 70,400 70,400 +2,550 .................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative (36,719) (36,700) (36,700) (-19) .................
expenses)...............................................
==============================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 1,165,304 1,281,304 1,287,351 +122,047 +6,047
Administration....................................
==============================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships (sec. 730)............................ 1,996 1,996 1,996 ................. .................
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund 5,000 ................. ................. -5,000 .................
FDA Drug reimportation (sec. 745)........................ 22,949 ................. ................. -22,949 .................
Limit crop insurance education........................... ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
Mallard Pointe conservation.............................. ................. ................. 150 +150 +150
Jamestown conservation................................... ................. ................. 450 +450 +450
Child and adult care feeding program..................... ................. ................. 10,000 +10,000 +10,000
CCC Apple market loss.................................... ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions............... 29,945 1,996 12,596 -17,349 +10,600
==============================================================================================
TITLE VIII--FISCAL YEAR 2001
NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND OTHER
EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Chief Information Officer: Common computing 19,457 ................. ................. -19,457 .................
environment (contingent emergency appropriations).......
Departmental administration (contingent emergency 200 ................. ................. -200 .................
appropriations).........................................
Farm Service Agency
Salaries and expenses (contingent emergency 49,890 ................. ................. -49,890 .................
appropriations).........................................
Emergency conservation program (contingent emergency 79,824 ................. ................. -79,824 .................
appropriations).........................................
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Federal crop insurance corporation fund (emergency 12,971 ................. ................. -12,971 .................
appropriations).........................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Watershed and flood prevention operations (contingent 109,758 ................. ................. -109,758 .................
emergency appropriations)...............................
Rural Development
Rural community advancement program (contingent emergency 199,560 ................. ................. -199,560 .................
appropria- tions)......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Agriculture................... 471,660 ................. ................. -471,660 .................
==============================================================================================
General Provisions
Conservation technical assistance (contingent emergency 34,923 ................. ................. -34,923 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Disease loss compensation (contingent emergency 19,000 ................. ................. -19,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
Dairy assistance (contingent emergency appropriations)... 473,000 ................. ................. -473,000 .................
CCC Livestock assistance program (contingent emergency 488,922 ................. ................. -488,922 .................
appropriations).........................................
WRP Additional acreage enrollments (contingent emergency 117,000 ................. ................. -117,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Sheep loss assistance (contingent emergency 2,395 ................. ................. -2,395 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Citrus canker compensation (contingent emergency 57,872 ................. ................. -57,872 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Apple/potatoes market loss and quality (contingent 137,696 ................. ................. -137,696 .................
emergency appropriations)...............................
CCC Honey assistance (contingent emergency 20,000 ................. ................. -20,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Livestock indemnity program (contingent emergency 9,978 ................. ................. -9,978 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Wool/mohair assistance (contingent emergency 19,956 ................. ................. -19,956 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Crop loss disaster assistance (contingent emergency 1,622,000 ................. ................. -1,622,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Cranberry assistance (contingent emergency 19,956 ................. ................. -19,956 .................
appropriations).........................................
Shared appreciation loan arrangements (contingent 2,000 ................. ................. -2,000 .................
emergency appropria- tions)............................
SC grain dealer's guarantee fund (contingent emergency 2,495 ................. ................. -2,495 .................
appropriations).........................................
Puerto Rico food stamp block grant....................... -5,000 ................. ................. +5,000 .................
Hawaii sugar transportation cost assistance (contingent 7,184 ................. ................. -7,184 .................
emergency appropriations)...............................
Rural development cooperative grants (contingent 9,978 ................. ................. -9,978 .................
emergency appropriations)...............................
Business and industry loans:
(Loan authorization)................................. (1,160,232) ................. ................. (-1,160,232) .................
Loan subsidy (contingent emergency appropriations)... 9,978 ................. ................. -9,978 .................
CCC Tobacco quota compensation (contingent emergency 3,000 ................. ................. -3,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Cooperative assistance (contingent emergency 19,956 ................. ................. -19,956 .................
appropriations).........................................
CCC Burley tobacco (contingent emergency appropriations). 50,000 ................. ................. -50,000 .................
CCC LDP delinquent borrower (contingent emergency 5,000 ................. ................. -5,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
Food stamp excess shelter allowance (contingent emergency 15,000 ................. ................. -15,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
Food stamp vehicle allowance (contingent emergency 25,000 ................. ................. -25,000 .................
appropriations).........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General Provisions.......................... 3,167,289 ................. ................. -3,167,289 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title VIII, FISCAL YEAR 2001................ 3,638,949 ................. ................. -3,638,949 .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE X--ANTI-DUMPING
Anti-dumping............................................. 39,912 ................. ................. -39,912 .................
==============================================================================================
Grand total:
New budget (obligational) authority............ 76,673,187 73,976,108 73,897,995 -2,775,192 -78,113
Appropriations............................. (73,029,238) (73,981,408) (73,903,295) (+874,057) (-78,113)
Rescission................................. ................. (-5,300) (-5,300) (-5,300) .................
Emergency appropriations................... (12,971) ................. ................. (-12,971) .................
Contingent emergency appropriations........ (3,630,978) ................. ................. (-3,630,978) .................
(By transfer).................................. (719,987) (764,774) (782,670) (+62,683) (+17,896)
(Loan authorization)........................... (11,456,803) (12,028,476) (14,067,332) (+2,610,529) (+2,038,856)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)........ (144,778) (144,759) (144,759) (-19) .................
==============================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs........................... 33,249,900 31,636,339 31,855,922 -1,393,978 +219,583
Title II--Conservation programs.......................... 871,556 928,605 980,416 +108,860 +51,811
Title III--Rural economic and community development 2,475,739 2,401,520 2,793,742 +318,003 +392,222
programs................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs......................... 34,111,683 36,629,391 35,839,891 +1,728,208 -789,500
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs......... 1,090,199 1,096,953 1,128,077 +37,878 +31,124
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug 1,165,304 1,281,304 1,287,351 +122,047 +6,047
Administration..........................................
Title VII--General provisions............................ 29,945 1,996 12,596 -17,349 +10,600
Title VIII, fiscal year 2001............................. 3,638,949 ................. ................. -3,638,949 .................
Title X, Anti-dumping.................................... 39,912 ................. ................. -39,912 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, new budget (obligational) authority......... 76,673,187 73,976,108 73,897,995 -2,775,192 -78,113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.
\2\ Public Law 480 program level of $159,676,000 for fiscal year 2002 combines direct loan level and ocean freight differential.
