[House Report 107-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-116
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002
_______
June 27, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bonilla, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2330]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 recommendation compared with
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2002 -------------------------------------
appropriation \1\ estimates recommendation FY 2001 FY 2002
appropriation estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs............................. $33,249,900,000 $31,636,339,000 $31,769,514,000 -$1,480,386,000 +$133,175,000
Title II--Conservation Programs............................ 871,556,000 928,605,000 948,632,000 +77,076,000 +20,027,000
ACP Rescission......................................... ................. ................ -45,000,000 -45,000,000 -45,000,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development 2,481,127,000 2,401,520,000 2,488,414,000 +7,287,000 +86,894,000
Programs..................................................
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs........................... 34,111,685,000 36,629,391,000 36,648,628,000 +2,536,943,000 +19,237,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs........... 1,090,199,000 1,096,953,000 1,106,701,000 +16,502,000 +9,748,000
Title VI--FDA and Related Agencies......................... 1,165,304,000 1,281,304,000 1,288,554,000 +123,250,000 +7,250,000
Title VII--General Provisions.............................. 29,945,000 1,996,000 155,000,000 +125,055,000 +153,004,000
Title VIII--Natural Disaster Assistance and Other Emergency 3,638,949,000 0 0 -3,638,949,000 0
Appropriations............................................
Title X--Anti-Dumping...................................... 39,912,000 0 0 -39,912,000 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 76,678,577,000 73,976,108,000 74,360,443,000 -2,318,134,000 +384,335,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.
For discretionary programs the Committee provides
$15,669,000,000, which is $3,046,700,000 less than the amount
available in fiscal year 2001 and $260,214,000 more than the
budget request.
In this report, all references to enacted fiscal year 2001
appropriations levels represent the amounts enacted in Public
Law 106-387, as reduced by 0.22 percent pursuant to Public Law
106-554.
Introduction
The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat
and poultry supply.
This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for all Americans and for
many more people overseas.
Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest
priorities. The bill provides funding for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the
Office of the Chief Economist, the Economic Research Service,
the Food and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Research
Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service for food safety related activities.
The rural development programs funded in this bill provide
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future
generations.
In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly
complex market in commodity trading.
To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more
difficult as the effort to preserve the budget surplus
continues. There are very few program increases in this bill.
Many of the accounts are at current levels of spending or
decreased from the previous fiscal year.
In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by
allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with
fiscal year 2001. The Committee's recommended program levels
are based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on
mandatory programs.
Pay Costs.--The Committee's recommendation includes full
funding to cover 4.6% pay increases for fiscal year 2002, the
level contained in the conference agreement on the budget
resolution. Without this funding, agencies would be required to
reduce the level of services provided in order to cover
mandatory cost increases.
Program Priorities/Loan Targeting.--The Committee will
expect the Department to focus exclusively on economic need
when attempting to target increased lending under various farm
loan and rural housing loan and assistance programs.
Proposed New User Fees.--The budget request assumes the
establishment of new user fees in the following areas:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Animal Welfare Inspections
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, Grain Standards Development
Food and Drug Administration:
Import Program Operations
Food Export Certificates
None of these proposed user fees are currently authorized in
law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in
annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should
they achieve authorization.
Unauthorized Appropriations Requests.--The Committee
directs that budget justification materials submitted in
support of future appropriations requests will contain tabular
listings of any item that is not authorized by law, in the
format contained elsewhere in this report under the heading
``Appropriations Not Authorized by Law''.
constitutional authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
2001 appropriation ..................................... $2,908,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 2,992,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 3,015,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +107,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +23,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $3,015,000, an increase of $107,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$23,000 above the budget request.
Plant and animal pest and disease emergencies.--The
Committee is concerned about the increasing risk to our
nation's food supply from plant and animal pests and diseases.
Recent examples include citrus canker in Florida, glassy-winged
sharpshooter in California, Asian longhorned beetles in
Illinois and New York, Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies
throughout the southern United States, and the possibility for
a foot and mouth disease incursion. The Committee notes that
the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to declare
emergencies and to use the resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation for the arrest and eradication of such threats to
American agriculture. This system has served our country well
for many years by granting the Secretary the power to make
virtually unlimited efforts to eliminate emerging pest and
disease problems before outbreaks expand and become
unmanageable.
Criminal acts/terrorist incidents.--The Committee is
concerned about rising numbers of criminal acts targeting
animal and plant research facilities. The Secretary is directed
to report to the Committee on the extent of animal and plant
terrorism incidents at USDA funded facilities, the consequence
of these activities on research, recommendations for improving
security at federally funded facilities, and guidance on the
appropriate federal role in response to such criminal
activities. This report shall be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Agriculture of both the
House and Senate by March 31, 2002.
Farmers' Market at USDA Headquarters.--The Committee notes
that the Farmers' Market operating at USDA headquarters in
Washington, D.C. has been a successful link between farmers and
consumers, demonstrating the role that USDA can play in
alternative market structures for producers. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to continue the operation of the USDA
Farmers' Market in its current location.
Food Guide Pyramid.--The Committee directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to study and report within 90 days of enactment of
this Act on the design of an effective program for elementary
school children to make use of the Food Guide Pyramid.
State Office Colocation.--The Committee continues to direct
that any reallocation of resources related to the colocation of
state offices scheduled for 2001 and subsequent years is
subject to the Committee's reprogramming procedures. The
Committee notes that no such reprogramming requests have been
received to date.
Alternative Energy.--The Committee notes that
notwithstanding the participation of the Secretary of
Agriculture in the National Energy Policy Development Group,
the Report of the Group to the President does not call
sufficient attention to the role of the Department of
Agriculture in the development of renewable energy sources. The
Committee urges the Department to continue its strong efforts
in support of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased renewable
fuels, and to work to bring these efforts to the forefront of
public attention. Further, the Committee looks forward to the
receipt of the report required by FY 2001 appropriations
legislation from the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, and
Interior, regarding the feasibility of including ethanol and
biodiesel as part of the national Strategic Fuels Reserve.
Agriculture Exhibit at the Smithsonian.--The Committee
believes that it is important that Americans be given a
comprehensive impression of the history of American
agriculture, and its continuing vitality and importance to our
economy. To that end, the Committee encourages the Secretary to
work with officials at the American History Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution to assist that museum in achieving the
goal to properly portray the key role agriculture plays in our
country with revisions and improvements to the current exhibit.
Global Food for Education Initiative.--The Committee
expects the Secretary of Agriculture to continue in fiscal year
2002 the Global Food for Education Initiative program
implemented in fiscal year 2001, at the level implemented in
fiscal year 2001. The assistance provided under this section
shall be in addition to other demands for section 416(b) and PL
480 Title I commodities.
Computing and Information Technologies Review.--The
Committee recognizes that U.S. competitiveness in 21st Century
agriculture will be based on multi-disciplinary research that
requires the most advanced computing and information
technologies. The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct a
review of its advanced computational capabilities, particularly
in the Agriculture Research Services, the Cooperative State,
Research, Education and Extension Service and the Economic
Research Service. The Committee is concerned that the
department is not keeping pace with other federal agencies both
in in-house and external research programs. The Committee also
urges the Secretary to convene a symposium of researchers from
the leading agricultural universities to identify complex
agricultural, environmental and natural resource research
problems that require significant computational resources and
programming to advance.
The Committee is concerned that extensive use of
contracting outside the Department for administrative and core
mission activities may not yield the best cost benefit or the
best customer benefit in terms of dealing with experienced
career federal personnel. Customers of federal programs such as
those administered by the Rural Development Services and the
Farm Service Agency often have needs and circumstances that are
not dealt with in the private sector. The Committee directs the
Department to make cost comparisons of the use of private
contractors with federal employee performance and to employ the
most efficient organization process as described in OMB
Circular A-76. The Committee also directs the Department to
solicit input from federal employees in agencies affected by
contracting out in order to ensure the expertise of those
employees is a part of any decision made by management. The
Committee also directs the Department to report on its
contracting out policies, including the agency budgets for
contracting out, with its annual budget submission for fiscal
year 2003.
Executive Operations
Executive Operations was established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected department-wide services.
Activities under Executive Operations include the Office of the
Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis.
Office of the Chief Economist
2001 appropriation.................................... $7,446,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 7,648,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,704,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +258,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +56,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture, and
is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop
outlook and situation material within the Department.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $7,704,000, an increase of
$258,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $56,000 above the budget request.
Agricultural supply and demand.--The Committee urges the
Department to work with a qualified entity such as Columbia
University's International Research Institute for Climate
Prediction to obtain improved and available tools and
mechanisms for foreign agricultural supply and demand
estimates.
National Appeals Division
2001 appropriation.................................... $12,394,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 12,766,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 12,869,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +475,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +103,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Committee Provisions
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $12,869,000, an increase of $475,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$103,000 above the budget request.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
2001 appropriation.................................... $6,750,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 6,978,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,041,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +291,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +63,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decision-making
process; and provides department-wide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget related matters to
the Committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides department-wide coordination
of the preparation and processing of regulations and
legislative programs and reports.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $7,041,000, an increase
of $291,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $63,000 above the budget request.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
2001 appropriation.................................... $10,029,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 10,261,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 10,325,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +296,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +64,000
Section 808 of P.L. 104-208 required the establishment of a
Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. Pursuant
to this Act, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was
established in August 1996, to provide policy guidance,
leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department's
information management and information technology investment
activities in support of USDA program delivery. The Office
provides long-range planning guidance, implements measures to
ensure that technology investments are economical and
effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources
Management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. The Office
also provides telecommunications and ADP services to USDA
agencies through the National Information Technology Center
with locations in Ft. Collins, Colorado and Kansas City,
Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to
the Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel,
Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Operations.
Additionally, the Office of the Chief Information Officer
is responsible for certain activities under the Department's
Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
committee provisions
For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $10,325,000, an increase
of $296,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $64,000 above the budget request.
The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to keep
the Committee updated, on a routine basis, as the information
risk management and telecommunications programs are
implemented.
Common Computing Environment
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $39,912,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 59,369,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 59,369,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +19,457,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
\1\ Excludes $19.5 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
appropriations provided by P.L. 106-387.
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency,
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer
information sharing among agencies of the Department. Section
808 of P.L. 104-208 requires USDA to maximize the value of
information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in
1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been
working to restructure county field offices, modernize and
integrate business approaches and replace the current, aging
information systems with a modern Common Computing Environment
that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff
efficiencies.
committee provisions
For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $59,369,000, an increase of
$19,457,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and
the same amount as the budget request.
The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting
to the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the
implementation of the Common Computing Environment.
Within the amount appropriated, $4,500,000 is for data
storage infrastructure hardware and software with heterogeneous
connectivity to all existing USDA information systems and
applications, and which enables remote mirroring for disaster
recovery, and of which $1,500,000 is for the same data storage
technology for the Combined Administrative Management System.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
2001 appropriation.................................... $5,160,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 5,335,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 5,384,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +224,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +49,000
Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction
and oversight of the Department's financial management
operations and systems. The Office supports the Chief Financial
Officer in carrying out the dual roles of the Chief Financial
Management Policy Officer and the Chief Financial Management
Advisor to the Secretary and mission area heads. The Office
provides leadership, expertise, coordination, and evaluation in
the development of Department and agency programs for financial
management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and
performance measurements. It is also responsible for the
management and operation of the National Finance Center. The
Office also provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to
the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff offices, Office
of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and
Executive Operations.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,384,000, an increase
of $224,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $49,000 above the budget request.
The Committee has included bill language that directs the
Chief Financial Officer to actively market and expand the
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
The Committee recommends language that allows the Secretary
to transfer funds provided in this Act and other available
unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, with the
approval of the agency administrator, to the Working Capital
Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment
necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and
information technology services of the National Finance Center
in New Orleans, LA, and the National Information Technology
Center in Kansas City, MO and Ft. Collins, CO.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
2001 appropriation.................................... $628,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 647,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 652,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +24,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +5,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, ethics, personnel management,
equal opportunity and civil rights programs, and other general
administrative functions. Additionally, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for
certain activities financed under the Department's Working
Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
committee provisions
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$652,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget
request.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
2001 appropriation.................................... $182,345,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 187,581,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 187,647,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +5,302,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +66,000
Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space
and for related services.
The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect. The cost
of newly leased space reflects current private sector market
rates. The leases are competitively acquired in close
coordination with USDA and other customer agencies.
Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity
provides departmental staff and support services to operate,
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing,
and improving the headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately
8,000 employees. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations of
the Beltsville Office Facility.
Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people,
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building. During FY 1998,
the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was
constructed with funds appropriated to the Department and is
located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. In
fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations at the Beltsville
Office Facility.
Committee Provisions
For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$187,647,000, an increase of $5,302,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $66,000 above
the budget request.
Included in this amount is $130,266,000 for rental payments
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent
of this appropriation to or from another agency's
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.
The Committee includes language as requested that allows
for the reconfiguration and release of space back into the
General Services Administration inventory in order to reduce
space rental cost for space not needed for USDA programs. The
Committee directs that the Appropriations Committees of both
Houses of Congress shall be notified at least 15 days in
advance of any proposal to commit or obligate funds for this
purpose.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account:
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
[In thousands of dollars]
2001 2002 budget Committee
estimate request recommendation
Rental Payments............... $125,266 $130,266 $130,266
Building Operations........... 31,136 31,372 31,438
Strategic Space Plan.......... 25,943 25,943 25,943
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 182,345 187,581 187,647
Hazardous Materials Management
2001 appropriation.................................... $15,665,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 15,665,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 15,665,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ ................
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas covered by the Department or
within departmental jurisdiction.
Committee Provisions
For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $15,665,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the
budget request.
Departmental Administration
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $35,931,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 37,079,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 37,398,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +1,467,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +319,000
\1\ Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L. 106-387 which was transferred to the Small Business
Administration.
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of the Department. These activities
include department-wide programs for human resource management,
management improvement, occupational safety and health
management, real and personal property management, procurement,
contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply
management, civil rights, equal opportunity and ethics,
participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the Department's
program activities, emergency preparedness, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. Departmental
Administration also provides administrative support to the
Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an independent entity
within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by
and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable
activity.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of government-wide
policies and initiatives; analyzing the impact of government-
wide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles,
policies, and standards. In addition, Departmental
Administration engages in strategic planning and evaluating
programs to ensure Department-wide compliance with applicable
laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative
matters for the Secretary and general officers of the
Department.
Committee Provisions
For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $37,398,000, an increase of $1,467,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$319,000 above the budget request.
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
2001 appropriation.................................... $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 2,993,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 2,993,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ ................
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with
demonstrated experience in providing education or other
agriculturally related services to socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic serving post-secondary
education facilities.
committee provisions
For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$2,993,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
2001 and the same amount as the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
2001 appropriation.................................... $3,560,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 3,684,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 3,718,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +158,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +34,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra
and inter-governmental relations.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$3,718,000, an increase of $158,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $34,000 above the
budget request.
Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds.
Office of Communications
2001 appropriation.................................... $8,604,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 8,894,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 8,975,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +371,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +81,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations
representing America's food, fiber, and environmental
interests.
committee provisions
For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $8,975,000, an increase of $371,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$81,000 above the budget request.
Office of Inspector General
2001 appropriation.................................... $68,715,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 70,839,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 71,429,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +2,714,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +590,000
The Office of Inspector General was established October 12,
1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This reaffirmed and
expanded the Office established by Secretary's Memorandum No.
1915, dated March 23, 1977.
The Office is administered by an Inspector General who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies, and review
of existing and proposed legislation and regulations regarding
the impact such initiatives will have on the economy and
efficiency of the Department's programs and operations and the
prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance
with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the
Department's agencies, and to provide appropriate officials
with the means for prompt corrective action where deviations
have occurred. The scope of audit and investigative activities
is large and includes administrative, program, and criminal
matters. These activities are coordinated, when appropriate,
with various audit and investigative agencies of the executive
and legislative branches of the government.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $71,429,000, an increase of $2,714,000
above the amount available for fiscal year 2001, and an
increase of $590,000 above the budget request.
Office of the General Counsel
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $31,012,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 32,627,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 32,937,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +1,925,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +310,000
\1\ Excludes $500,000 less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L 106-554.
The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the
Office of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law
office of the Department of Agriculture, and manages all of the
legal work arising from the activities of the Department. The
General Counsel represents the Department on administrative
proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations
having the force and effect of law; in quasi-judicial hearings
held in connection with the administration of various programs
and acts; and in proceedings involving freight rates and
practices relating to farm commodities. Counsel serves as
General Counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation and the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal cases
arising under the programs of the Department for referral to
the Department of Justice.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $32,937,000, an increase of
$1,925,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $310,000 above the budget request.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
2001 appropriation.................................... $555,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 573,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 578,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +23,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +5,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $578,000, an increase of $23,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000
above the budget request.
Economic Research Service
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $66,891,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 67,200,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 67,620,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +729,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +420,000
\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $1 million to FPA in the Food and
Nutrition Service.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, food, natural resources, and
rural America. ERS produces such information for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
Committee Provisions
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $67,620,000, an increase of $729,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$420,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided
$9,195,000 for food program studies and evaluations work under
the Economic Research Service and $3,000,000 for food program
studies under the Food and Nutrition Service.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
2001 appropriation.................................... $100,550,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 113,786,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 114,546,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +13,996,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +760,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, state, and county agricultural
statistics, which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. These statistics provide
accurate and timely estimates of current agricultural
production and measures of the economic and environmental
welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
Beginning with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, funding
has been provided to NASS for the Census of Agriculture which
has been transferred from the Department of Commerce to the
Department of Agriculture to consolidate the activities of the
two agricultural statistics programs. The Census of Agriculture
is taken every five years and provides comprehensive data on
the agricultural economy including: data on the number of
farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values,
value of land and buildings, farm size, and characteristics of
farm operators. It provides national, state, and county data as
well as selected data for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United
States Virgin Islands.
Committee Provisions
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $114,546,000, an
increase of $13,996,000 above the amount available in fiscal
year 2001 and an increase of $760,000 above the budget request.
Included in this amount is $25,456,000 for the Census of
Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture collects and provides
comprehensive data every five years on all aspects of the
agricultural economy.
The budget year is the third year in a five-year funding
cycle for the Census of Agriculture; Census funding needs are
cyclical and increase as data collection activities begin.
Agricultural Research Service
2001 appropriation.................................... $896,835,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 915,591,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 971,365,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +74,530,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +55,774,000
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on November 2, 1953, under the
authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 133z-15),
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities.
Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912), ARS includes functions previously
performed by the Human Nutrition Information Service and the
National Agricultural Library. ARS conducts basic and applied
research in the fields of animal sciences, plant sciences,
entomology, soil, water and air sciences, agricultural
engineering, utilization and development, human nutrition and
consumer use, marketing, development of integrated farming
systems, and development of methods to eradicate narcotic-
producing plants.
ARS also directs research beneficial to the United States
which can be advantageously conducted in foreign countries
through agreements with foreign research institutions and
universities, using foreign currencies for such purposes. This
program is carried out under the authority of sections 104(b)
(1) and (3) of Public Law 480, and the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended.
Committee Provisions
Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $971,365,000, an increase of $74,530,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$55,774,000 above the budget request.
Animal vaccines.--There is a critical need to develop new
technologies to mitigate the adverse impacts of disease on
cattle, poultry, and swine. The USDA estimates that the annual
monetary loss as a result of cattle and swine diarrheal disease
is $500 million in the U.S. alone. Additionally, USDA estimates
that food borne pathogens cause between 6.5 million and 33
million cases of human disease and 9,000 deaths annually. The
Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002
for expanded research on advanced animal vaccines and
diagnostic applications currently carried out jointly by ARS,
the University of Connecticut, and the University of Missouri.
Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC).--ARS' National
Agricultural Library (NAL) operates the Animal Welfare
Information Center which was established as mandated by the
1985 Animal Welfare Act, as amended. AWIC is a key component of
NAL's integrated information services program that enhances
access to information about animal welfare. The center assists
researchers and others responsible for the care of laboratory
animals with important information to enable them to comply
with the humane standards established under the Animal Welfare
Act. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal
year 2002 for expanded animal welfare activities.
Aquaculture initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institute.--The Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 in
fiscal year 2002 for collaborative research between the
Agricultural Research Service and the Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute, with participation of the Florida
State University on research to design low-cost energy
efficient recirculating aquaculture production systems for
marine species in new environments. This research will expand
aquaculture of subtropical marine species to inland sites
throughout the Southeastern U.S. by adapting marine species to
new environments of fresh water. This research will focus on
culture technologies, energy efficiency, and design of low-cost
recirculating systems for intensive aquaculture production.
Bee research.--The Committee recognizes the important
research carried out at Weslaco, Texas in control of parasitic
mites and directs the agency to continue its support of the bee
research program at the fiscal year 2001 level.
Binational agriculture research and development.--The
Committee recognizes the important research carried out through
the binational agriculture research and development program and
provides $399,120, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.
Biobased products and bioenergy.--The development of
biobased products and bioenergy represents an additional source
of demand for agricultural products as well as enhanced energy
security. Ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased products are
also necessary to provide products that have environmental
benefits. The Committee provides $15,000,000 for this research
as justified in the President's budget. Research to improve
conversion of agricultural materials to biofuels: Peoria,
Illinois, $4,800,000; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,200,000; and
Albany, California, $2,000,000. Develop biobased materials for
agricultural commodities: Peoria, Illinois, $1,500,000;
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,250,000; and New Orleans, Louisiana,
$1,250,000. Improve biomass feedstocks for energy: Lincoln,
Nebraska, $700,000; St. Paul, Minnesota, $400,000; and Madison,
Wisconsin, $400,000. Sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct crop
production systems, $1,500,000, to be conducted at El Reno,
Oklahoma; Tifton, Georgia; Mandan, North Dakota; University
Park, Pennsylvania; and Corvallis, Oregon.
Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides $4,500,000 to
develop bioinformatic tools and provide database support for
ARS' plant and animal science programs. The research will be
conducted at Beltsville, Maryland; Ithaca, New York; Clay
Center, Nebraska; Ames, Iowa; and Stoneville, Mississippi. The
genomics program will generate information for dairy cattle,
beef cattle, pigs, and poultry. It will enhance the capacity to
manage information from the analysis of plant and crop genomes.
Bioinformatics and database support will be developed for
soybeans, cotton, corn, maize, and catfish. This effort will
prove invaluable in developing new technologies that will
provide more rapid and efficient methods to characterize,
identify, and manipulate useful properties of genes and
genomes.
Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematodes.--The
Committee recognizes the need for additional research on crop
pests, particularly soil nematodes. The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 for a cooperative project involving the
ARS Beltsville research center, private partners and other
universities for systematic field experiments in major
nematode-impacted crop production areas.
Biotechnology Research Development Corporation--BRDC.--BRDC
is a uniquely successful public/private partnership dedicated
to promoting technology development and commercialization of
agricultural technology. The success of this investment can be
measured by the large number of patents and technology licenses
of inventions sponsored through BRDC. The Committee is
providing an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to
expedite the development and commercialization of agricultural
technology which will result in an improved farm economy and
related agribusiness based industries.
Biotechnology risk assessment.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 as requested to conduct research which will provide
early identification of potential risks in deploying biotech
crops, and data sets that can be used by regulatory agencies to
assess risk and apply science-based management. The research is
directed to assessing the risks of lateral gene transfer in the
environment; preventing the buildup of resistant pest
populations; and decreasing allergens and increasing
nutritional qualities of biotech food products. This research
will be carried out at Beltsville, Maryland; Madison,
Wisconsin; Albany, California; Ithaca, New York; and West
Lafayette, Indiana.
Bovine genetics.--The cattle industry in the U.S. is a $400
billion annual business. The Committee supports a research
program on biotechnology and genetics in cattle to be jointly
carried out by ARS, the University of Connecticut and the
University of Illinois. This program will utilize advanced
research technologies to improve efficiency of clones and
establish cell lines from elite cows and bulls for cloning. The
Committee provides an increase of $900,000 for these studies.
Center for Biological Controls, Florida A&M University.--
The Center for Biological Controls conducts important research
in the area of biological controls for insects and pests that
cost agricultural producers millions of dollars in losses
annually. The Center partners with the USDA in providing
minority students with the opportunity to engage in cutting
edge research in agriculture sciences. The Committee provides
an increase of $250,000 for this joint research.
Cereal crops research.--The Committee is aware of the
significant research on the quality and improved production
practices for barley and oats conducted at the Cereal Crops
Research Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee
provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for
expanded research on these important commodities.
Chloroplast genetic engineering research.--The Committee is
aware of research advances at the University of Central Florida
on chloroplast genetic engineering. The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for cooperative
research with the University of Central Florida to conduct
research on the efficient and effective means of genetically-
engineering chloroplast to increase efficiency of
photosynthesis as a key component of agricultural production
and to reduce the spread of transgenes via pollen flow.
Coffee and cocoa research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the expansion of
alternative crop research development with specific emphasis on
coffee and cocoa. This disease resistance/alternative crop
research development program is critical in controlling a range
of domestic and tropical fungal and pest diseases that
particularly plague coffee and cocoa.
Continuing Programs.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems
faced by the Nation's food and fiber producers. In this regard,
the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to
continue to fund the following areas of research in fiscal year
2002 at the same funding level provided in fiscal year 2001:
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation; Microbial Pathogens in Small
Watersheds; National Sedimentation Laboratory-Acoustics;
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory; Soil Tilth Research; Water
Use Management Technology; Watershed Research; Western
Grazinglands; Bee Research; Biological Controls and
Agricultural Research; Cereal Crops Research; Citrus and
Horticultural Research; Coffee and Cocoa Research; Endophyte
Research; Floriculture and Nursery Crops Research; Golden
Nematode; Grape Rootstock; Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research;
Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Lettuce Geneticist/
Breeder, Salinas, CA; Fusarium Head Blight; Nematology
Research; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA; Potato
Research; Rangeland Resource Management; Rice Research; Risk
Assessment for Bt. Corn; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley;
Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position; Temperate Fruit Flies;
U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory; Viticulture
Research; Animal Vaccines; Aquaculture Fisheries Center;
Aquaculture Initiative for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands;
Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute;
Aquaculture Systems; Asian Bird Influenza; Avian Pneumovirus;
Catfish Genome; Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus; Mosquito
Trapping Research and West Nile Virus; Poultry Enterititis-
Mortality Syndrome (PEMS); Poultry Diseases; Aflatoxin in
Cotton; Cotton Ginning Research; Post-harvest and Controlled
Atmosphere Chamber; Barley Food Health Benefits Research.
Dairy genetics research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the Animal
Improvement Research Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland for
increased research on dairy cattle genetics and to undertake
research related to reproductive health. This research will
include the maintenance of a national database for genetic
research on milk yield, composition, and fitness traits;
improved methods of comparing genetic evaluations across
countries, and determine economic values of health and
reproductive traits.
Diet and immune function research.--Infectious diseases are
a major cause of mortality and morbidity in all segments of the
population. Nutritional imbalances can lead to impaired immune
response. Additional research is needed to determine the
effects of diet on the immune system and whether infectious
agents can alter their pathogenicity in response to the diet of
the host. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for
this research to be conducted at the ARS nutrition center at
Little Rock, Arkansas.
Dryland production research.--The Committee is aware that
the ARS Central Great Plains Research Station is the only
Federal research station engaged at solving the dryland
production problems in the four-state region encompassing
eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, western Kansas, and
southeastern Wyoming covering approximately 55 million acres of
which one-half are non-irrigated cropland. Technology developed
at the Station is critical to dryland crop producers of the
region. An increase of $300,000 is provided in fiscal year 2002
to the ARS Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron,
Colorado to implement innovative crop rotation systems and
reduce tillage practices and improve crop yields, while
minimizing weed, disease, and insect damage.
Emerging diseases of animals.--The Committee provides
$5,000,000 as requested for research on bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) to establish the nature and transmission
of BSE; detection and diagnosis of this disease; and safe
disposal of carcasses. The research will determine the
causative agent of BSE and determine the factors that allow
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies to cross species
barriers. Research will be conducted to improve diagnostic
tests for rapid detection of BSE agents in blood or tissues and
in feed and foods of animal origin.
Emerging diseases of crops.--Continued development of
pathogen detection, exclusion, and quarantine treatment
technologies is important to keep new diseases from becoming
established in the U.S. The Committee acknowledges the need for
research to improve genetic resistance to diseases in plants,
biocontrol to replace synthetic pesticides; and more accurate
methods of pathogen identification and detection. The Committee
provides $1,282,000 for this research, to be carried out in
Raleigh, North Carolina; Ft. Detrick, Maryland; Fargo, North
Dakota; and College Station, Texas.
Ergot research.--Ergot is a major fungus disease of
sorghum. The disease has spread rapidly since it was first
recognized in Brazil in 1995. Currently grown sorghum varieties
have little resistance to this fungus. While the Agricultural
Research Service has a research program to combat this disease,
greater effort is required. ARS carries out sorghum related
research at numerous locations, but in many instances the
research is not of sufficient effort to contribute to the
solution of the problems associated with sorghum in the U.S.
The Committee directs that ARS collect and focus $300,000 of
these funds at Lincoln, Nebraska, to combat the spread of ergot
disease.
Floriculture and nursery research.--Floriculture and
nursery crops represent more than 10% of the total U.S. crop
cash receipts while environmental horticulture is the third
largest value crop in the U.S. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, with a portion
allocated through cooperative agreements to university partners
including Cornell University, University of California, and
Ohio State University.
Food safety for Listeria and E. coli.--The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to
continue research on the control and prevention of Listeria
monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and E.
coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products.
Formosan subterranean termite.--The exotic Formosan
Subterranean termite costs the U.S. one billion dollars each
year. It is particularly damaging in the Greater New Orleans
area, along the Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. The Committee is aware
that ARS scientists, in cooperation with scientists from
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the City of
New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board successfully
demonstrated in a 15-block New Orleans French Quarter test that
populations of the termite can be dramatically reduced on an
area-wide basis by the use of detection and baiting
technologies. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000
in fiscal year 2002 to the Southern Regional Research Center at
New Orleans, Louisiana to expand the 15-block test to encompass
the entire 108-block area of the historically and economically
important French Quarter. New information and technologies
gained from this expanded test will be used to increase the
effectiveness of area-wide programs in other parts of Louisiana
and other states.
Foundry sand by-products utilization.--The Committee
recognizes the potential for the use of foundry sand by-
products as soil amendment or components of blended materials
including composts for agricultural applications. The Committee
provides an increase of $600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable
ARS and university/industry partners to evaluate the beneficial
uses of foundry sand in agriculture and horticulture. Benefits
and risks of using foundry sand will be determined and
management practices will be developed. Research will also be
conducted to determine if trace elements in the foundry sand
pose a risk to human health or water quality.
Ft. Pierce horticultural research laboratory.--The
Committee is aware that this recently completed horticultural
research laboratory is operating significantly below authorized
staffing levels. This laboratory carries out critical research
on citrus, fruits, and vegetables and nursery crops. The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002
for the U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory at Ft. Pierce,
Florida for increased staffing needs.
Ginning technologies.--The Committee directs that research
carried out by ARS in cotton ginning harvesting and the
development of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal
year 2001 funding levels.
Golden nematode.--The Committee provides an increase of
$50,000 in fiscal year 2002 to Cornell University to continue
golden nematode research in plant breeding, nematology, and
activities involving seed production and extension.
Grape rootstock.--Grapes are the highest value fruit crop
in the U.S. and sixth largest crop overall. Increased grape
research is needed to sustain this crop which is processed into
raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby adding enormous value
to the crop. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in
fiscal year 2002 for expanded grape rootstock research at
Geneva, New York.
Great Basin rangelands.--The Committee acknowledges the
need to provide support for the rangelands of the Great Basin
area. The Agricultural Research Service carries out
investigations to control infestations such as medusahead,
Canadian thistle, Russian knapweed, and many other existing and
invasive weeds. Research is conducted on management of
rangelands, including conservation, restoration, and
sustainable utilization. Research is also carried out to
develop predictive models of basin-scale hydrologic systems.
The Committee provides an addition of $750,000 for research to
be conducted at ARS laboratories at Reno, Nevada; Burns,
Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.
Honey bee research.--Pollination by honey bees in the U.S.
is valued at $10 billion per year, but the viability of
commercial honey bee pollination and honey production as well
as survival of wild honey bees (free pollination) is threatened
by two exotic parasitic mites--the Varroa and tracheal mites.
New chemical treatments, including an evaluation of natural
product chemicals for these mites, are urgently needed because
current chemical treatments have been rendered ineffective by
the mites' ability to become resistant. Long-term control of
the mites will be achieved through the selection of honey bees
resistant to the mites. ARS scientists at Baton Rouge, LA, have
developed honey bees genetically resistant to the mites, as
well as possessing excellent handling characteristics, honey
production, and winter survival. Breeding, selection, and
distribution of these resistant honey bees to the industry must
be accelerated. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000
to continue this research at the ARS honey bee facility at
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Hops research.--The Committee is aware of the significant
increase in U.S. hops production with exports to over 80
countries worldwide. The Committee also recognizes the
important contribution of research to U.S. hop growers in
competing successfully with European hop growers for domestic
and international markets. The Committee provides an increase
of $200,000 for increased research required by U.S. hop growers
to remain competitive in the domestic and world markets as well
as in controlling new and emerging diseases affecting hops.
Improved animal waste management practices.--The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS
Florence, SC research station for expanded research on improved
manure management practices for producers in the Southeastern
U.S. This station develops improved treatment technologies and
systems to enable producers to manage animal waste from swine
production to protect water and air quality.
Improved crop production practices.--The drought of 2000
caused disastrous losses to row crops in the mid-south and
southeast. In Alabama alone, losses amounted to $329 million.
Studies have shown that farmers using conservation-tillage,
water-thrifty cropping systems, and other soil sustaining
production practices in concert with new technologies, such as
global positioning systems, geographic information systems, and
remote sensing, can reduce drought-related risks and production
costs. The Committee provides an increase of $800,000 in fiscal
year 2002 for expanded research at the ARS Soil Dynamics
Research Unit in Auburn, Alabama, and Auburn University.
Invasive species.--Invasive weeds and other pests species
cost the U.S. over $122 billion per year. Weeds such as leafy
spurge, melaleuca, old world climbing fern, giant Salvinia,
salt cedar, hydrilla, water hyacinth, yellow starthistle, downy
brome, Brazilian pepper, jointed goat grass, purple
loosestrife, and many others infest at least 100 million acres
in the United States which increase 8 to 20 percent annually.
The Committee supports research that will result in greater
exclusion of potential invasive species, quicker detection and
more effective eradication of new invading species. The
Committee provides an increase of $3,500,000 for this research
on the systematics of invasive weeds and insects; the
development of new biological information and species
discovery; and the development of integrated weed management
systems. This research will be conducted at ARS laboratories in
Beltsville, Maryland; Davis, California; Ft. Pierce, Florida;
Montpellier, France; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Urbana, Illinois;
Ithaca, New York; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, as recommended in the
budget. The Committee directs that $500,000 be utilized for a
cooperative research program with the Connecticut Agriculture
Experiment Station in New Haven for controlling aquatic weeds
seriously threatening the health of many of Connecticut's
lakes.
Jornada Experimental Range Research Station.--Congress
supported the design and construction of a replacement facility
at the Jornada Experimental Range Research Station. The
facility will be completed in fiscal year 2002. The Committee
provides an increase of $500,000 to provide for needed research
equipment for operations at this new research station.
Livestock and range research.--Range livestock production
requires new, innovative strategies to meet the challenges of
land use management, environmental quality and economic
sustainability. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000
for fiscal year 2002 to support this research effort at the
Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City,
Montana.
Manure management research.--There is a need for
nutritional technology to reduce odor excretion in swine while
increasing efficient digestion of dietary nutrients. In
addition, an integrated system research effort to develop swine
production systems that reduces odor, nutrients, and pathogen
problems associated with manure is likewise needed. The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002
for the ARS swine waste management program based at the
National Swine Research Center, Ames, Iowa.
Methyl bromide.--The Committee has been made aware that new
information may be available concerning the impact of methyl
bromide on the ozone layer. In view of the adverse economic
impact that the current phase-out schedule is having on the
farmer and the food industry, the Committee urges the
Department to convene a panel of scientists who specialize in
this area to reexamine the science and report its findings as
soon as possible.
Mid-Atlantic highlands aquaculture initiatives.--The
Committee provides an increase of $200,000 in fiscal year 2002
for ARS cooperative research on aquaculture initiatives with
the Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) headquartered at Canaan
Valley, West Virginia. CVI provides a forum where small
watershed groups, government, industry, and the research
community can address economic development issues affecting the
mid-Atlantic highland states of Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation.--While irrigation is
normally associated with the arid, western part of the U.S.,
the fastest growing irrigation states are found in the Mid-West
and the Mid-South. The need for irrigation in these areas is
critical in reducing production risks, increase producer
yields, promote good land management practices, and reduce
input costs. The Committee provides an increase of $130,000 in
fiscal year 2002 for cooperative research into irrigation
methods and technologies with the Delta Center, University of
Missouri at Portageville, Missouri.
Minor use pesticides (IR-4).--Meeting the challenges of
pest management for minor crops is a major problem in rural
America. Pest control product registrations are critical to
minor crop agriculture. However, the crop production industry
has little incentive to pursue such registrations because of
small acreage and low return of investment. This program
produces research data for clearances for pest control products
on minor food and ornamental crops and supports the FQPA. The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002
for this research.
National germplasm resources program.--The Committee is
aware of the important research carried out under the ARS
National Genetics Resources Program. The research effort to
collect, maintain, characterize, evaluate and enhance the
germplasm is essential to agriculture and a critical component
of the ARS mission. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for plant germplasm research at
College Station, Texas; Griffin, Georgia; Miami, Florida;
Pullman, Washington; Ames, Iowa; and Urbana, Illinois. Under
the National Genetic Resources Program, Congress authorized the
National Animal Germplasm Program to evaluate, collect and
store germplasm, DNA and other tissues for preservation and
utilization of genetic resources. ARS, academia (land grant and
Historically Black Colleges and Universities), and industry are
all involved in this program. The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for this research at
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Northwest small fruits research.--The Committee
acknowledges the long-standing and productive investigations
carried out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, Oregon.
The research is concentrated on genetic improvements and
germplasm evaluations for many varieties of small fruits. This
research benefits small fruit industries throughout the Pacific
Northwest. An addition of $300,000 is provided for fiscal year
2002.
Nutritional requirements research.--Nutrition requirements
begin in utero, and are affected by the mothers dietary intake.
These requirements continue throughout life. Although nutrient
requirements differ at various stages of life, there is a lack
of understanding as to the specific nutritional needs at each
life stage. This research would lead to a better understanding
of how dietary factors affect growth and development, and the
onset of chronic diseases. The Committee provides an increase
of $500,000 for these studies to be conducted at the ARS human
nutrition center at Houston, Texas.
Nutrition Monitoring.--Nutrition monitoring activities are
vital to shaping policies for food safety, child nutrition,
food assistance, and dietary guidance. While the Committee
suports the process underway to integrate the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Continuing
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by
USDA, it is concerned the USDA has failed to continue to
conduct the CSFII in 2000 and 2001 as the integration process
continues.
Olive fruitfly research.--The olive fruitfly is the world's
number one pest of olives, causing devastating effects on the
$66 million olive industry in California. The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for
increased research on the trap monitoring detection program and
the integrated pest management program to control the olive
fruitfly. Expanded research will be implemented at the
Horticultural Research Laboratory, Parlier, CA; and the
European Biological Control Laboratory, Montpellier, France.
Pathogens for biological control.--The Committee
acknowledges the need to expand efforts in biological control
of insects and weeds. Investigations will be undertaken to
develop biologically based weed and arthropod integrated pest
management (IPM), with emphasis on formulation and delivery of
plant pathogen agents, fungal agents, microbial agents, and
effective insect control agents. Weeds such as salt cedar,
leafy spurge, melaleuca; and insects and mites such as
whiteflies, Russian wheat aphid, and glassy-winged sharpshooter
are high priority targets for IPM. The Committee concurs with
the budget recommendation to provide $1,500,000 for this
research to be carried out at Weslaco, Texas; Yakima,
Washington; Stoneville, MS; and Brisbane, Australia.
Pay act costs.--The Committee provides funding for
increased costs associated with Federal employees salaries and
benefits.
Pecan scab research.--Pecan scab is considered the most
serious disease threat to pecan production in the humid
southeastern U.S. Recent discoveries indicating the persistence
of pecan fungicides have complicated the task of developing
effective disease control. The Committee provides an increase
of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Southeastern Fruit
and Tree Nut Research Laboratory at Byron, Georgia to expand
research efforts on the introduction and evaluation of new
technology for fungicide application, increased knowledge of
pathogens, orchard management and disease control.
Pierce's disease.--The Committee is aware that in the last
18 months, the highly virulent disease known as Pierce's
Disease and its vector the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (PD-GWSS)
has devastated vineyards in Southern California and established
strongholds in several other premium growing areas threatening
the entire grape and wine industry. Several other commodities
have been impacted because they serve as hosts of the glassy-
winged sharpshooters. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have
costly requirements for inspection and treatment regimens to
curb the spread of PD-GWSS. International trade has also been
restricted as Australia recently banned imports of California
grapes over fears of Pierce's Disease. The Committee provides
an increase of $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable the ARS
center at Parlier to move aggressively and effectively against
this serious pest/disease combination threat to the economic
viability of many crops in California. The Committee directs
that $600,000 of the increase support new scientist positions
at Davis, California, and Ft. Pierce, Florida.
Plant stress and water conservation research.--The
Committee is aware of the staffing needs at the new U.S. Plant
Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX.
Increased research is required to develop strategies to
alleviate the impacts of temperature stress and water deficits
on plant performance, improve the efficient use of available
water supplies for dryland and irrigated production systems,
and research production strategies to enhance the entire soil-
plant-water relationship. An increase of $750,000 is provided
in fiscal year 2002 for staffing needs of the U.S. Plant Stress
and Water Conservation Laboratory.
Poultry diseases.--The Committee is aware that research on
poultry diseases is critical to national and international
competitiveness of animal agriculture and that poultry diseases
are a limiting factor to the expansion of U.S. poultry exports.
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for fiscal year
2002 for increased research on Avian coccidiosis, an intestinal
parasitic disease which is responsible for estimated losses of
over $300 million annually. The Committee also provides an
increase of $150,000 for increased research to help accelerate
effective avian pneumovirus disease treatment and vaccine
development.
Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest.--
The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 for the ARS
Southwest Watershed Research Center at Tucson, Arizona, and
directs ARS to cooperate with a consortium of 16 local, state,
Federal and NGO's of the Upper San Pedro Partnership to provide
research, hydro-ecological modeling, and specialized field
experimental campaigns to more accurately quantify components
of a basin's water budget to support local and community based
watershed management.
Rangeland resources research.--The Committee is aware that
ARS High Plains Grassland Research Station at Cheyenne, Wyoming
is a leader in the fields of grazing practices, carbon cycling,
reclamation of disturbed mineland and general rangeland
ecology. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in
fiscal year 2002 to support this important rangeland resources
research program at the station.
Residue management in sugarcane.--Current systems for
sugarcane production in Louisiana include the practice of
burning the crop residue after the sugarcane has been
harvested. To meet current air quality regulations and
additional environmental restrictions anticipated in the
future, research is urgently needed to develop sugarcane
productions systems that do not include residue burning.
Residue management strategies must be evaluated for their
impact on sugarcane production, runoff, water quality, nutrient
and pesticide transport and retention in the soil profile, and
on soil physical properties. The Committee provides an increase
of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane Research
Unit at Houma, Louisiana and the ARS Soil and Water Research
Unit at Baton Rouge, Louisiana to develop Best Management
Practices (BMP) to ensure the economic production of sugarcane
without adverse environmental damage.
Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the need for
additional research to help keep the U.S. rice industry
competitive in the global marketplace by assuring high yields,
superior grain quality, pest resistance, and stress tolerance.
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for this
research to be carried out at the ARS center in Stuttgart,
Arkansas.
Seismic and acoustic technologies in soil research.--New
acoustic and seismic technologies open the path for improved
and more efficient crop production practices. Use of these new
technologies to characterize soils, detect hard pan levels,
assess water content, and other applications must be
accelerated to reduce crop production costs and conserve
energy, water, and soil. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS National Sedimentation
Laboratory at Oxford, Mississippi to accelerate research in
this area.
Sorghum research.--Sorghum is an important grain crop in
the U.S. and worldwide. In 1999, the estimated value of sorghum
in the U.S. was $1.7 billion. In terms of grain and oilseed
crops, sorghum follows corn, soybeans and wheat. Additional
research is needed to enhance the economic viability of this
crop in the development of alternative uses; pest resistance,
soils research and fundamental genetic and molecular research
on drought and temperature stress. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,950,000 for sorghum utilization research at
Manhattan, Kansas, $250,000; genetics and breeding at
Stillwater, Oklahoma, $250,000; soil and water related research
at Bushland, Texas, $200,000; and to establish molecular/
genetic research to address fundamental issues of drought and
temperature stress at Lubbock, Texas, $1,250,000.
Source Water Protective Initiatives.--The Committee
recognizes agricultural and environmental water quality issues
related to water movement through agricultural drainage systems
serving as conduits for movement of pollutants into surface
water systems. The management of subsurface or groundwater flow
can have a major effect on pesticides and soil erosion. The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to the Soil Drainage
Research Unit in Columbus, Ohio to implement the Source Water
Protective Initiative in the Upper Big Walnut Creek Watershed.
The Committee also provides an increase of $300,000 to the
National Soil Erosion Laboratory in West Lafayette, Indiana, to
implement the Source Water Protective Initiative in the St.
Joseph River Watershed to address the problem of surface runoff
and transport of sediment and agricultural chemicals and
nutrients from fields and agricultural lands.
Southwest pecan research.--Pecan is the most valuable
native North American nut crop. The Committee recognizes the
need to strengthen research to increase pecan production. This
research emphasizes development of improved cultivars and
rootstocks; collection and maintenance of germplasm, and
development of host plant resistance to control pecan insects
and diseases. An addition of $300,000 is provided in fiscal
year 2002 for this research, which is conducted at the College
Station and Brownwood, Texas, research stations.
Soybean and nitrogen fixation.--The ARS Soybean and
Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina, has been
widely recognized for its work in developing higher-value
soybeans that improve profitability for farmers. Scientists at
this laboratory require additional resources in their efforts
to develop new varieties that have drought tolerance and
improved oil and protein quality. The Committee provides an
increase of $400,000 for this research.
Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center.--The
Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center benefits the
aquaculture industry enormously with its research on disease
control production improvements, stress tolerance, and food
quality. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in
fiscal year 2002 to expand the research carried out at this
aquaculture center.
Sudden Oak disease.--Since 1995, oak trees have been dying
in large numbers along the California and Oregon coasts. The
disease has spread to other plants including rhododendron and
huckleberry. There is great potential for this disease to
spread throughout the country. The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 to conduct research to identify causative
agents and diagnostic tools. The primary focus of this research
is the ARS Ft. Detrick research laboratory.
Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the
importance of the sugarbeet research at Ft. Collins, Colorado.
The Committee directs the ARS to fund this project at the
fiscal year 2001 level.
Sugarcane variety research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane
Research Station at Canal Point, Florida. There funds will be
used toward strengthening and expanding the breeding,
pathology, and soil conservation projects currently in
progress. This ARS station provides the necessary breed stock
for sugarcane growers in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.
Sustainable vineyards practices position.--The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 for the sustainable vineyards
practices position at UC-Davis. This research position will be
responsible for the development of biologically and
environmentally sound practices for grape growing which enhance
compatibility with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.
U.S. National Arboretum.--The U.S. National Arboretum's
Gardens Unit is responsible for maintaining the garden
displays, collections, and grounds of the 446 acre campus in
northeast Washington, D.C. The collections include valuable
germplasm of species and cultivated plants that are used by
researchers, the ornamental horticultural trade, gardeners, and
the general public throughout the country. The Committee
provides an increase of $325,000 to maintain, document and
distribute germplasm and increase efforts to disseminate
information on ornamental horticulture.
Vaccines and microbe control for fish health.--Diseases and
toxins produced by algae and microbes in the water are the most
serious problems affecting the billion dollar fish farming
industry, including channel catfish. Stressful conditions
caused by factors such as crowding and high feeding levels to
increase growth rates act to suppress the resistance of fish to
disease. Farmers lack preventive methods to combat the diseases
and toxins. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in
fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Fish Diseases and Parasites
Research Unit at Auburn, Alabama in collaboration with Auburn
University for problem-focused research urgently needed to
develop vaccines that safely and effectively prevent diseases
and toxicity, and identify gene resistance of fish to disease
and toxicity.
Virus diseases of vegetables.--The Committee recognizes the
need to increase research efforts to determine the etiology and
epidemiology of emerging virus diseases of vegetables. Research
will focus on virus-resistant vegetable germplasm and
development of integrated disease control methods. The
Committee provides $500,000 to the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory at
Charleston, South Carolina, as requested.
Viticulture research.--The Committee is aware of the
importance of the grape and wine industry in the Pacific
Northwest and of the work being conducted by ARS in cooperation
with the University of Idaho. The Committee provides an
additional $150,000 to ARS for expanded research in fiscal year
2002.
Water resources management research.--Water quality and
water resource management continue to be priority issues for
agriculture and the environment. Research is needed to enhance
water management initiatives regionally and nationally. The
Committee concurs with the need to investigate the network of
stream flow, precipitation, groundwater, water quality, and
land use information for the entire Suwannee River Basin. The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for the Southeast
Watershed Research Laboratory to carry out this research in
cooperation with the University of Georgia and the Suwannee
River Water Management District. In addition, new technologies
to improve water use efficiency and quality at both a state and
watershed scale should be expedited. The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS research
station at Tifton, GA, for this work. This increase will be
used to advance the discovery and use of economical precision
water application technologies for water conservation and water
quality and to develop accurate source, impact and solution
information on water quality concerns related to total maximum
daily loading (TMDL's) of critical streams in the region.
Wheat quality research.--The Committee supports ARS'
ongoing wheat research program, and recognizes the need for
additional research to improve competitiveness and export
quality in hard wheat, club wheat, durum wheat, soft red wheat,
and white wheat. The Committee provides an additional
$1,000,000 for this research to be carried out at the ARS
research locations in Pullman, Washington; Wooster, Ohio;
Manhattan, Kansas; and Fargo, North Dakota.
Wild rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of
$50,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the wild rice breeding and
germplasm improvement cooperative project directed at the ARS
research station in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Woody ornamental genomics and breeding for the Southeast.--
Ornamental horticulture is valued at $11 billion annually in
farm gate receipts. Expansion of this industry in Tennessee and
other Appalachian States would help offset the declining value
of other traditional agricultural products such as tobacco,
dairying, and feed grain. However, profitable expansion of
ornamental horticulture is impeded by insect, disease, and
nematode pests, which also cause extensive chemical usage. The
Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002
for cooperative research with the ARS research station at
Poplarville, Mississippi, and the University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture.
Seed Stock.--The Committee is concerned that as more
ownership of seed stock rests in private rather than in the
public domain, the ability to maintain an inventory of stock
for future national needs becomes more difficult. The Committee
directs the Department to provide a report in advance of the
fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the scope and condition of
known collections of seed stocks in the United States and
around the world, what steps are being taken to identify and
catalogue privately and publicly held seed stock and where such
stock might be reposited. Further, this report shall also
detail the ability and limits faced by the Department in
developing new seed stock varieties for American agriculture,
and what might be the most critical immediate and medium term
needs to assure the broadest representation of germplasm in
seed stocks over which the United States can maintain access
and assure quality.
Buildings and Facilities
2001 appropriation.................................... $74,037,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 30,462,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 78,862,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +4,825,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +48,400,000
The ARS Buildings and Facilities account was established
for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities which directly or indirectly support research and
extension programs of the Department. Routine facilities
maintenance, construction or replacement items would continue
to be funded under the limitations contained in the regular
account.
Committee Provisions
For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$78,862,000, an increase of $4,825,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $48,400,000
above the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 Committee
estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Arizona:
U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton 0 $8,400
Laboratories, Maricopa...................
California:
Western Regional Research Center, Albany.. $3,800 3,800
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, 5,000 5,000
Davis....................................
District of Columbia:
U.S. National Arboretum................... 4,600 4,600
Illinois:
Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria. 6,500 6,500
Iowa:
USDA Facility Consolidation and 0 40,000
Modernization, Ames......................
Maryland:
National Agricultural Library, Beltsville. 1,800 1,800
New York:
Plum Island Animal Disease Center, 3,762 3,762
Greenport................................
Pennsylvania:
Eastern Regional Research Center, 5,000 5,000
Philadelphia.............................
-------------------------
Total, Buildings and Facilities......... 30,462 78,862
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton Research
Laboratories.--The U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory (USWCL)
was constructed in 1959. The USWCL conducts research to
increase water use efficiency in agricultural production for
the irrigated West and to conserve and improve the quantity and
quality of our Nation's water supplies. The Western Cotton
Research Laboratory (WCRL) was constructed in 1971. The WCRL
conducts research to increase the efficiency of producing
cotton in the irrigated West to ensure that U.S. cotton will be
competitive in both price and quality in the world market. The
ARS laboratories in Phoenix utilized an adjacent University of
Arizona research farm to conduct large scale field plot
experiments essential to support the water conservation and
cotton production research programs. The University established
a new large farming and research facility near Maricopa. Due to
the unavailability of field plot land near the Phoenix
location, the ARS researchers must now travel about 28 miles to
the Maricopa Agricultural Center (MAC) to conduct their field
experiments. Existing facilities require extensive renovation
and repair to meet safety and health codes and to provide
modernized research facilities. To date $7,285,000 has been
appropriated for new facilities. The Committee provides an
additional $8,400,000 toward the design and construction
requirements of the replacement facilities at Maricopa.
USDA Facility Consolidation and Modernization.--The
Department has developed a master plan to construct new animal
facilities to replace and modernize the National Animal Disease
Center (NADC), the National Veterinary Service Laboratories
(NVSL), and the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB), which
are all located in Ames, Iowa.
Together, these three operations occupy a 480 acre site and
are housed in 103 buildings with 750,000 square feet of space.
There are 548 total staff members, with an annual budget of $45
million. Because of space constraints, needs have been
partially met by renting laboratory space at strip malls and
office parks elsewhere in Ames for the past 29 years. Existing
facilities are grossly debilitated and inadequate for animal
health programs of high national priority.
Consumers rely on USDA to be prepared to deal with known
and emerging diseases that are a rapidly growing threat because
of increased travel, trade, concentration, and pathogen
resistance. This threat is not theoretical, but very real, as
underscored this year with foot and mouth disease and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). This threat
affects producers, consumers, and the economic well-being of us
all. USDA's research and diagnostic capability is crucial to
preparedness and rapid response in the face of this threat.
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 to meet the urgent
need to begin to consolidate and modernize existing animal
research and diagnostic facilities. It is the Committee's view
that this project is crucial to fulfilling USDA's mission to
ensure a safe food supply and to expand global markets for
agricultural products and services. This multi-year
construction effort is a cost-effective approach including
utility infrastructure replacement, new facility construction,
renovation of existing facilities, elimination of the need for
rental space, and demolition of totally obsolete facilities.
As part of its recommendation, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Agriculture to report within 60 days of enactment
of this Act, and quarterly thereafter until completion, on the
execution status of this project, on the scope and schedule of
remaining construction increments, and on cost reduction
initiatives taken to assure that this project will remain
within program requirements.
Plum Island Animal Disease Center.--The Committee
recommends $3,762,000, as requested, for repair and maintenance
of buildings and supporting infrastructure at the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center at Greenport, NY. The Committee notes
that no funds are requested for planning or executing an
upgrade of the Center to Biosafety Level 4, and no funds are
provided for this purpose. Funds are provided for the following
projects:
Coastal erosion control measures...................... $1,500,000
Clean-up of construction debris site.................. 500,000
Potable water system/miscellaneous small projects/ 1,762,000
contingencies........................................
-----------------
Total........................................... 3,762,000
Raleigh, North Carolina.--The Committee requests the
Agricultural Research Service to provide a report on the
requirements, feasibility, and scope for construction of a
facility to consolidate personnel in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The report should provide information on building size, cost,
and a list of primary associated facilities including, but not
limited to, laboratory space, greenhouse facilities, and
quarantine areas.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) was established by the Secretary of
Agriculture on October 1, 1994, under the authority of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
6912). The Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative
State Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission
of CSREES is to work with university partners to advance
research, extension, and higher education in the food and
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
Research and Education Activities
2001 appropriation.................................... $505,079,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 407,319,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 507,452,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +2,373,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +100,133,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
were established by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1462, dated July
19, 1961 and Supplement 1, dated August 31, 1961, and under
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. The primary function of
research and education activities is to administer Acts of
Congress that authorize Federal appropriations for agricultural
research and higher education carried out by the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States, District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands, and by
approved schools of forestry, the 1890 land-grant colleges and
Tuskegee University, the 1994 Native American land-grant
institutions, and other eligible institutions. Administration
of payments and grants involves the approval of each research
proposal to be financed in whole or in part from Federal grant
funds; the continuous review and evaluation of research and
higher education programs and expenditures thereunder; and the
encouragement of cooperation within and between the states and
with the research programs of the Department of Agriculture.
Committee Provisions
For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $180,148,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.
For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $21,884,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget
request.
For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee
University, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$32,604,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
2001 and the same as the budget request.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Activities:
Payments under the Hatch $180,148 $180,148 $180,148
Act....................
Cooperative Forestry 21,884 21,884 21,884
Research (McIntire-
Stennis)...............
Payments to 1890 32,604 32,604 32,604
Colleges and Tuskegee
University.............
Special Research Grants
(P.L. 89-106):
Advanced genetic 474 0 474
technologies (KY)......
Advanced spatial 998 0 998
technologies (MS)......
Aegilops cylindricum 359 0 459
(jointed goatgrass)
(WA)...................
Aflatoxin (IL).......... 131 0 0
Agricultural 131 0 131
diversification (HI)...
Agricultural diversity/ 374 0 500
Red River Corridor (MN,
ND)....................
Agricultural 424 0 0
telecommunications (NY)
Agriculture-based 349 0 0
industrial lubricants
(IA)...................
Agriculture water usage 299 0 0
(GA)...................
Agroecology (MD)........ 284 0 500
Alliance for food 299 0 299
protection (GA, NE)....
Alternative crops (ND).. 624 0 0
Alternative crops for 100 0 100
arid lands (TX)........
Alternative nutrient 190 0 0
management (VT)........
Alternative salmon 644 0 0
products (AK)..........
Animal science food 1,631 0 1,631
safety consortium (AR,
IA, KS)................
Apple fire blight (MI, 499 0 499
NY)....................
Aquaculture (AR)........ 237 0 237
Aquaculture (FL)........ 445 0 500
Aquaculture (LA)........ 329 0 329
Aquaculture (MS)........ 591 0 591
Aquaculture (NC)........ 299 0 299
Aquaculture (VA)........ 100 0 100
Aquaculture (WA)........ 284 0 284
Aquaculture product and 748 0 0
marketing development
(WV)...................
Asparagus technology and 225 0 225
production (WA)........
Babcock Institute (WI).. 599 0 600
Beef technology transfer 284 0 0
(MO)...................
Biobased technology (MI) 284 0 0
Bioinformatics (VA)..... 474 0 0
Biomass-based energy 900 0 900
research (OK, MS)......
Biotechnology (NC)...... 284 0 284
Blocking anhydrous 247 0 247
methamphetamine
production (IA)........
Bovine tuberculosis (MI) 324 0 0
Brucellosis vaccine (MT) 495 0 495
Center for animal health 113 0 0
and productivity (PA)..
Center for rural studies 200 0 0
(VT)...................
Chesapeake Bay 175 0 300
agroecology (MD).......
Chesapeake Bay 391 0 0
aquaculture............
Citrus canker (FL)...... 4,740 0 500
Citrus tristeza......... 740 0 740
Competitiveness of 679 0 679
agriculture products
(WA)...................
Cool season legume 328 0 328
research (ID, WA)......
Cotton fiber quality 0 0 500
(GA)...................
Cranberry/blueberry (MA) 175 0 175
Cranberry/blueberry 220 0 220
disease and breeding
(NJ)...................
Dairy and meat goat 63 0 63
research (TX)..........
Dairy farm profitability 284 0 284
(PA)...................
Delta rural 205 0 205
revitalization (MS)....
Designing foods for 562 0 562
health (TX)............
Diaprepes/root weevil 394 0 500
(FL)...................
Drought mitigation (NE). 200 0 200
Ecosystems (AL)......... 499 0 0
Efficient irrigation 1,185 0 1,200
(NM, TX)...............
Environmental 190 0 190
biotechnology (RI).....
Environmental 284 0 500
horticulture (FL)......
Environmental research 399 0 399
(NY)...................
Environmental risk 227 0 227
factors/cancer (NY)....
Environmentally-safe 245 0 0
products (VT)..........
Exotic pest diseases 1,247 0 2,000
(CA)...................
Expanded wheat pasture 292 0 292
(OK)...................
Farm injuries and 284 0 284
illnesses (NC).........
Feed barley for 692 0 692
rangeland cattle (MT)..
Fish and shellfish 474 0 474
technologies (VA)......
Floriculture (HI)....... 249 0 249
Food and Agriculture 948 0 1,000
Policy Research
Institute (IA, MO).....
Food irradiation (IA)... 225 0 250
Food Marketing Policy 494 0 494
Center (CT)............
Food processing center 42 0 42
(NE)...................
Food quality (AK)....... 349 0 0
Food safety (AL)........ 520 0 0
Food safety research 284 0 1,000
consortium (NY)........
Food security (WA)...... 0 0 500
Food Systems Research 499 0 500
Group (WI).............
Forages for advancing 374 0 0
livestock production
(KY)...................
Forestry (AR)........... 522 0 522
Fruit and vegetable 347 0 0
market analysis (AZ,
MO)....................
Generic commodity 198 0 198
promotions, research
and evaluation (NY)....
Global change/ 1,431 1,431 1,431
ultraviolet radiation..
Grain sorghum (KS)...... 106 0 106
Grass seed cropping for 422 0 422
sustainable agriculture
(ID, OR, WA)...........
Human nutrition (IA).... 472 0 472
Human nutrition (LA).... 750 0 750
Human nutrition (NY).... 621 0 621
Hydroponic tomato 100 0 100
production (OH)........
Illinois-Missouri 1,239 0 1,239
Alliance for
Biotechnology..........
Improved dairy 397 0 397
management practices
(PA)...................
Improved early detection 198 0 198
of crop diseases (NC)..
Improved fruit practices 444 0 0
(MI)...................
Infectious disease 299 0 299
research (CO)..........
Institute for Food 1,247 0 1,247
Science & Engineering
(AR)...................
Integrated production 180 0 0
systems (OK)...........
Intelligent quality 142 0 142
sensor for food safety
(ND)...................
International arid lands 494 0 494
consortium.............
Iowa Biotechnology 1,561 0 1,561
Consortium.............
Livestock and Dairy 569 0 569
Policy (NY, TX)........
Livestock genome 0 0 500
sequencing (IL)........
Lowbush blueberry 259 0 259
research (ME)..........
Maple research (VT)..... 119 0 0
Meadowfoam (OR)......... 299 0 299
Michigan biotechnology 723 0 491
consortium.............
Midwest Advanced Food 461 0 461
Manufacturing Alliance.
Midwest agricultural 645 0 645
products (IA)..........
Midwest poultry 0 0 500
consortium (IA)........
Milk safety (PA)........ 374 0 750
Minor use animal drugs.. 549 549 549
Molluscan shellfish (OR) 399 0 399
Multi-commodity research 363 0 363
(OR)...................
Multi-cropping 127 0 127
strategies for
aquaculture (HI).......
National beef cattle 284 0 350
genetic evaluation
consortium (NY)........
National biological 253 253 0
impact assessment......
Nematode resistance 127 0 127
genetic engineering
(NM)...................
Nevada arid rangelands 299 0 299
initiative (NV)........
New crop opportunities 495 0 0
(AK)...................
New crop opportunities 723 0 0
(KY)...................
Non-food uses of 64 0 64
agricultural products
(NE)...................
Nursery, greenhouse, 284 0 400
turf specialties (AL)..
Oil resources from 175 0 175
desert plants (NM).....
Organic waste 100 0 100
utilization (NM).......
Oyster post harvest 0 0 500
treatment (FL).........
Pasture and forage 249 0 249
research (UT)..........
Peach tree short life 179 0 179
(SC)...................
Peanut allergy reduction 499 0 0
(AL)...................
Pest control 117 0 117
alternatives (SC)......
Phytophthora root rot 138 0 138
(NM)...................
Pierce's disease (CA)... 1,896 0 2,000
Plant, drought, and 249 0 249
disease resistance gene
cataloging (NM)........
Potato research......... 1,447 0 1,447
Precision agriculture 748 0 0
(KY)...................
Preharvest food safety 212 0 212
(KS)...................
Preservation and 226 0 226
processing research
(OK)...................
Produce pricing (AZ).... 76 0 0
Protein utilization (IA) 190 0 0
Rangeland ecosystems 299 0 299
(NM)...................
Red snapper research 723 0 1,200
(AL)...................
Regional barley gene 587 0 587
mapping project........
Regionalized 293 0 293
implications of farm
programs (MO, TX)......
Rice modeling (AR)...... 295 0 0
Rural Development 522 522 700
Centers (PA, IA, ND,
MS, OR, LA)............
Rural Policies Research 820 0 1,300
Institute (NE, IA, MO).
Russian wheat aphid (CO) 249 0 249
Safe vegetable 284 0 0
production (GA)........
Satsuma orange research 474 0 1,000
(AL)...................
Sclerotina disease 237 0 0
research (MN)..........
Seafood and aquaculture 304 0 304
harvesting, processing
and marketing (MS).....
Seafood harvesting, 1,165 0 0
processing, and
marketing (AK).........
Seafood safety (MA)..... 277 0 500
Small fruit research 324 0 400
(OR, WA, ID)...........
Southwest consortium for 368 0 400
plant genetics and
water resources........
Soybean cyst nematode 599 0 700
(MO)...................
STEEP--water quality in 499 0 600
the Pacific Northwest..
Sustainable agriculture 392 0 500
(CA)...................
Sustainable agriculture 444 0 0
(MI)...................
Sustainable agriculture 100 0 125
and natural resources
(PA)...................
Sustainable agriculture 59 0 59
systems (NE)...........
Sustainable beef supply 742 0 742
(MT)...................
Sustainable engineered 0 0 500
materials from
renewable resources
(VA)...................
Sustainable pest 461 0 461
management for dryland
wheat (MT).............
Swine and other animal 499 0 499
waste management (NC)..
Technological 284 0 300
development of
renewable resources
(MO)...................
Tillage, silviculture, 212 0 212
waste management (LA)..
Tomato wilt virus (GA).. 249 0 249
Tropical aquaculture 198 0 198
(FL)...................
Tropical and subtropical 3,854 0 10,000
research/T STAR........
Turkey carna virus (IN). 200 0 0
Value-added product 331 0 331
development from
agricultural resources
(MT)...................
Value-added products 95 0 150
(IL)...................
Vidalia onions (GA)..... 249 0 0
Viticulture consortium 1,497 0 2,000
(NY, CA, PA)...........
Water conservation (KS). 79 0 79
Water use efficiency and 0 0 600
water quality
enhancements (GA)......
Weed control (ND)....... 435 0 435
Wetland plants (LA)..... 599 0 599
Wheat genetic research 260 0 260
(KS)...................
Wheat sawfly research 331 0 331
(MT)...................
Wood utilization (AK, 5,773 0 5,773
ID, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC,
OR, TN)................
Wool research (TX, MT, 299 0 300
WY)....................
Adjustment for rounding. 3 0 0
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Special 85,481 2,755 82,409
Research Grants......
===========================================
Improved pest control:
Emerging pests/critical 200 200 200
issues.................
Expert IPM decision 177 177 177
support system.........
Integrated pest 2,725 2,725 2,725
management.............
IR-4 minor crop pest 8,970 8,970 11,000
management.............
Pest management 1,619 1,619 1,619
alternatives...........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Improved 13,691 13,691 15,721
pest control.........
===========================================
National Research Initiative 105,767 105,767 105,767
(NRI) competitive grants...
Animal health and disease 5,098 5,098 5,098
(sec. 1433)................
Alternative crops:
Canola.................. 599 0 600
Hesperaloe and other 199 0 350
natural products from
desert plants..........
Critical Agricultural 639 0 639
Materials 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 998 998 998
program....................
Hispanic education 3,492 3,492 3,492
partnership grants.........
Capacity building grants 9,479 9,479 9,479
(1890 institutions)........
Payments to the 1994 1,549 1,549 1,549
Institutions...............
Alaska Native-serving and 2,993 2,993 2,993
Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions education
grants.....................
Secondary agriculture 798 798 1,000
education..................
Sustainable agriculture 9,230 9,230 12,000
research and education/SARE
Aquaculture centers (sec. 3,991 3,991 3,991
1475)......................
Federal Administration:
Agriculture-based 0 0 450
industrial lubricants
(IA)...................
Agriculture development 563 0 563
in the American Pacific
Agriculture waste 495 0 0
utilization (WV).......
Agriculture water policy 365 0 750
(GA)...................
Alternative fuels 258 0 300
characterization
laboratory (ND)........
Animal waste management 274 0 0
(OK)...................
Aquaculture (OH)........ 0 0 500
Biotechnology (MS)...... 590 0 0
Center for Agricultural 427 0 750
and Rural Development
(IA)...................
Center for Innovative 759 0 781
Food Technology (OH)...
Center for North 87 0 250
American Studies (TX)..
Climate change research 170 0 0
(FL)...................
Cotton research (TX).... 499 0 1,000
Data Information System. 2,120 2,120 2,120
Fruit and vegetable 0 0 347
market analysis (AZ,
MO)....................
Geographic information 1,023 0 1,025
system.................
Germplasm development in 100 0 100
forage grasses (OH)....
Livestock marketing 185 0 0
information center (CO)
Mariculture (NC)........ 324 0 324
Mississippi Valley State 646 0 0
University.............
National Center for 399 0 0
Peanut Competitiveness
(GA)...................
Office of Extramural 448 448 448
Programs...............
Pay costs and FERS...... 1,098 1,594 1,732
Peer Panels............. 349 349 349
PM-10 air quality study 435 0 435
(WA)...................
Precision agriculture/ 586 0 0
geospatial training and
application center (AL)
Precision agriculture/ 147 0 600
Tennessee valley
research and extension
center (AL)............
Produce pricing (AZ).... 0 0 76
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, 4,168 0 4,168
HI, LA, MA, MS, SC, TX)
Sustainable agriculture 474 0 500
development (OH).......
Urban silviculture (NY). 237 0 237
Water quality (IL)...... 348 0 0
Water quality (ND)...... 394 0 394
Wetland plants (WV)..... 142 0 200
Adjustment for rounding. -2 0 0
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal 18,108 4,511 18,399
Administration.......
===========================================
Total, Research and 505,079 407,319 507,452
Education Activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
2001 appropriation.................................... $7,100,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 7,100,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,100,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ ................
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides authority to establish an
endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (31 tribal
controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational
opportunities for Native Americans by building educational
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student
recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty
preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific
instrumentation for teaching. Beginning in 2001, funds also are
available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and
maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for
the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted
income as follows: sixty percent of the adjusted income from
these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant
institutions on a pro-rata basis, the proportionate share being
based on the Indian student count; and forty percent of the
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the
1994 land-grant institutions.
Committee Provisions
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee provides $7,100,000, the same as the amount available
in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.
Extension Activities
2001 appropriation.................................... $432,475,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 413,404,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 436,029,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +3,554,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +22,625,000
Cooperative agricultural extension work was established by
the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The legislation
authorizes the Department of Agriculture to give, through the
land-grant institutions, instruction and practical
demonstrations in agricultural and home economics and related
subjects, and to encourage the application of such information
by means of demonstrations, publications, and otherwise to
persons not attending or a resident in the colleges. In
addition, the Service provides nutrition training to low-income
families, 4-H Club work, and educational assistance such as
community resource development.
Committee Provisions
For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $436,029,000, an increase of $3,554,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$22,625,000 above the budget request.
The following table reflects the amount provided by the
Committee:
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c).. $275,940 $275,940 $275,940
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety..................... 3,991 0 5,800
Food and nutrition education.... 58,566 58,566 58,566
Indian reservation agents....... 1,996 1,996 1,996
Pest management................. 10,759 10,759 10,759
Rural development centers....... 906 906 906
Sustainable agriculture......... 3,792 3,792 5,000
Youth at risk................... 8,481 8,481 8,481
Youth farm safety education and 499 499 499
certification..................
Renewable Resources Extension Act... 3,185 3,185 3,185
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee 28,181 28,181 28,181
University.........................
1890 facilities grants.............. 12,173 12,173 12,173
Rural health and safety education... 2,622 0 2,622
Extension services at the 1994 3,273 3,273 3,273
institutions.......................
Adjustment for rounding............. -1 0 0
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 414,363 407,751 417,381
===================================
Federal Administration:
After-school program (CA)....... 398 0 0
Ag in the classroom............. 451 451 750
Agricultural telecommunications 0 0 424
(NY)...........................
Beef producers improvement (AR). 197 0 197
Botanical garden initiative (IL) 237 0 0
Conservation technology transfer 474 0 500
(WI)...........................
Dairy education (IA)............ 237 0 0
Delta Teachers Academy.......... 3,492 0 3,492
Diabetes detection, prevention 924 0 924
(WA)...........................
Efficient irrigation (NM/TX).... 1,896 0 2,000
Extension specialist (MS)....... 100 0 100
Family farm beef industry 1,317 0 1,400
network (OH)...................
Food animal residue avoidance 284 0 1,000
database/FARAD.................
Food Electronically and 167 0 0
Effectively Distributed (FEED)
demonstration project (OR).....
Income enhancement demonstration 245 0 246
(OH)...........................
Integrated cow/calf management 284 0 300
(IA)...........................
National Center for Agriculture 195 0 200
Safety (IA)....................
Pilot technology transfer (WI).. 163 0 163
Pilot technology transfer (OK, 325 0 325
MS)............................
Potato pest management (WI)..... 190 0 200
Range improvement (NM).......... 197 0 197
Rural development (AK).......... 617 0 0
Rural development (NM).......... 279 0 454
Rural rehabilitation (GA)....... 245 0 245
Vocational agriculture (OK)..... 275 0 0
Wood biomass as an alternative 197 0 197
farm product (NY)..............
General administration and pay.. 4,726 5,202 5,334
-----------------------------------
Total, Federal Administration. 18,112 5,653 18,648
===================================
Total, Extension Activities... 432,475 413,404 436,029
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.
Farm Safety: AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for
Smith-Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends
$4,600,000 for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with
disabilities to be able to farm safely, efficiently, and
profitably through on-the-farm education and assistance.
Income enhancement demonstration (OH).--The Committee
expects that the Agricultural Business Enhancement Center will
intensify its efforts in identifying and pursuing improved
business practices and alternative market opportunities,
including those related to sales at or through Farmers'
Markets.
Prairie State Wilderness Walk.--The Committee encourages
the Department to support the enhancement of the Prairie State
Wilderness Walk in Chicago.
integrated activities
2001 appropriation.................................... $41,849,000
2002 budget estimates................................. 41,849,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 43,355,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +1,506,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +1,506,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Programs
included support multifunctional projects that integrate
research, education and extension components.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants
Program:
Water Quality............................................... $12,971 $12,971 $12,971
Food Safety................................................. 14,967 14,967 14,967
Pesticide Impact Assessment................................. 4,531 4,531 4,531
Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation...................... 1,497 1,497 1,497
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems.... 4,889 4,889 4,889
Methyl Bromide Transition Program........................... 2,495 2,495 2,500
Organic Transition Program.................................. 499 499 2,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Integrated Activities.............................. 41,849 41,849 43,355
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.
Committee Provisions
For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $43,355,000, an increase of $1,506,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$1,506,000 above the budget request.
Water Quality: Farm*A*Syst.--Within funds provided for
Water Quality under the Integrated Activities account, the
Department is encouraged to give consideration to $2,000,000
for the Farm*A*Syst program, to expand this voluntary pollution
prevention program which has been utilized in Skaneateles Lake
and Cortland County, NY, to help farmers and residential owners
identify pollution risks on their property.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
2001 appropriation.................................... $634,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 654,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 660,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +26,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +6,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders and various programs; veterinary services; and
plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$660,000, an increase of $26,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget
request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and Expenses
Total, APHIS
Appropriations User Fees \1\ Appropriations
2001 appropriation \1\.................................... $444,584,000 $84,813,000 $529,397,000
2002 budget estimate...................................... 618,112,000 84,813,000 702,925,000
Provided in the bill...................................... 502,573,000 84,813,000 587,386,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................... +57,989,000 ................ +57,989,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. -115,539,000 ................ -115,539,000
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
appropriations.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972
under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 and
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect
the animal and plant resources of the nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports-of-entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to cooperators such as
states, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals as
required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring of certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals;
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered
products.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.--User fees are
collected to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine
activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction
of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the amounts provided by the
Committee:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
enacted request provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine $38,884 $47,254 47,254
inspection..................
User fees \1\................ 84,813 84,813 84,813
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, AQI.............. 123,697 132,067 132,067
======================================
Cattle ticks................. 5,264 5,732 6,232
Foot-and-mouth disease....... 3,795 3,839 3,839
Import/export................ 7,010 8,132 8,132
Trade issues resolution 8,187 11,367 11,367
management..................
Fruit fly exclusion and 32,538 56,018 34,818
detection...................
Screwworm.................... 30,308 30,557 30,557
Tropical bont tick........... 406 415 415
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease 211,205 248,127 227,427
Exclusion.................
======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
Monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and 68,502 71,531 73,306
surveillance................
Animal and plant health 6,249 6,601 7,601
regulatory enforcement......
Emergency management system.. 2,990 3,044 5,044
Pest detection............... 6,714 6,844 6,844
--------------------------------------
Total, Plant and Animal 84,455 88,020 92,795
Health Monitoring.........
======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
Programs:
Aquaculture.................. 918 940 940
Biocontrol................... 8,300 8,759 8,759
Boll weevil.................. 78,983 33,931 33,931
Brucellosis eradication...... 9,921 8,450 8,450
Emerging plant pests......... 3,525 99,492 48,515
Golden nematode.............. 579 610 1,010
Gypsy moth................... 4,407 4,559 4,559
Imported fire ant............ 2,095 2,118 2,118
Noxious weeds................ 1,122 1,130 1,130
Pink bollworm................ 1,545 1,616 1,616
Pseudorabies................. 4,030 34,570 4,151
Scrapie eradication.......... 3,017 21,019 3,119
Tuberculosis................. 5,462 18,552 5,649
Wildlife services operations. 36,700 54,456 56,956
Witchweed.................... 1,503 1,520 1,520
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease 162,107 291,722 182,423
Management................
======================================
4. Animal Care:
Animal welfare............... 12,140 12,767 15,167
Horse protection............. 397 415 415
--------------------------------------
Total, Animal Care......... 12,537 13,182 15,582
======================================
5. Scientific and Technical
Services:
Biotechnology/environmental 9,999 10,516 10,516
protection..................
Integrated systems 998 998 2,500
acquisition project.........
Plant methods development 4,796 5,118 5,118
laboratories................
Veterinary biologics......... 10,727 11,413 11,413
Veterinary diagnostics....... 17,476 18,278 18,278
WS methods development....... 11,001 11,455 12,955
--------------------------------------
Total, Scientific and 54,997 57,778 60,780
Technical Services........
======================================
6. Contingency fund.............. 4,096 4,096 4,096
7. Pay parity.................... ........... ........... 4,283
--------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and 529,397 702,925 587,386
Expenses..................
======================================
Recap (Salaries and Expenses):
Appropriated................. 444,584 618,112 502,573
AQI user fees................ 84,813 84,813 84,813
--------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and 529,397 702,925 587,386
Expenses..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
appropriation.
Agricultural quarantine inspection.--The Committee
encourages APHIS to explore the use of computer tomography
technology to more effectively execute its contraband
interception mission.
Cattle ticks.--The Committee has provided $6,232,000 for
the cattle tick eradication program. The Committee notes that
there are at least two vacant inspector positions (Mission and
Brownsville, TX), that have gone unfilled for lack of funds,
the program's vehicle fleet of 60 vehicles all have over 80,000
miles each, and existing radio equipment needs replacing. The
Committee has included an additional $500,000 over the
President's request for this program. The Committee expects the
Agency to fill at least two inspector vacancies, replace at
least 5 vehicles, and ensure that the radio equipment is up-to-
date.
Fruit fly.--The Committee has provided $34,818,000 for the
fruit fly program. The Committee has included an additional
$2,000,000 to address the inequity in the distribution of funds
for fruit fly trapping in Florida and California. The Committee
directs the Agency to increase the California fruit fly
trapping program by $2,000,000 to close the gap in the
distribution of funds.
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHM&S).--The
Committee provides an additional $750,000 for the National
Poultry Improvement Plan. The Committee expects APHIS to use
the additional funds to increase the number of Salmonella
isolates to be serotyped, and to increase the number of
antigen/antiserum test kits for avian influenza.
Within the amount provided for AHM&S, $4,000,000 is
available for pseudorabies monitoring and surveillance.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2001 level for the National Farm Identification Records Project
for Dairy Cattle to be coordinated with the Holstein
Association.
The Committee has included an increase of $1,000,000 for a
cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Animal Health
Consortium for a pilot project to aid in creating a universal
identification and database retrieval system for tracking the
movement of animal and animal-based food products. The
Committee urges APHIS and the Wisconsin Animal Health
Consortium to work in concert with the National Farm Animal
Identification Project to ensure that duplication of program
does not occur.
Animal and Plant health regulatory enforcement.--The
Committee has provided $7,601,000 for animal and plant health
regulatory enforcement. The Committee has included an increase
of $1,000,000 for investigative enforcement, and expects the
Agency to hire additional investigators to begin addressing the
backlog of animal care investigations.
Emergency Management System.--The Committee has provided
$5,044,000 for the Emergency Management System, an increase of
$2,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee expects
APHIS to place emergency managers in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency regions across the country. The Committee
encourages APHIS to use the funds to make grants to States to
establish animal health emergency standards and programs.
The Committee directs APHIS to determine if existing
quantitative tools are available to assess the effectiveness of
local government planned responses to potential outbreaks of
bovine diseases, and to report to the Committee on
Appropriations what existing quantitive tools are available by
December 1, 2001.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee
(GYIBC).--The Committee provides $600,000 for the GYIBC and
encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and private
actions aimed at eliminating brucellosis from wildlife in the
Greater Yellowstone area.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee has provided
$48,515,000 for the emerging plant pests program including:
$3,618,000 for the base program; $10,000,000 for glassy-winged
sharpshooter; and $34,897,000 to augment CCC transfers to
combat emergency outbreaks of citrus canker, Asian longhorned
beetle, and plum pox virus.
The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to
continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the arrest and
eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that
threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this
account, the Committee is enhancing the work that has begun to
combat emergency outbreaks.
The Committee notes that funds appropriated in this bill
are subject to obligation within the fiscal year for which they
are appropriated while funds transferred from the CCC are
available until expended. For example, according to USDA's
fiscal year 2002 budget justifications, there is about
$65,000,000 in CCC funds that was transferred in fiscal year
2000 that was still available for obligation as of April 9,
2001. If those funds had been appropriated, they would not have
been available in fiscal year 2001. The use of the Secretary's
emergency authority places the Department in a better position
to respond to emergencies, more so than the annual budget and
appropriations cycle that takes about 18 months to complete.
The Committee is aware of the emerging problem that the
olive fly is having on the olive industry and directs APHIS to
provide adequate resources to combat this pest.
Golden nemotode.-- The Committee has included an increase
of $400,000 for golden nematode control efforts in New York.
The Committee directs APHIS to coordinate the use of added
funds with the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets and Cornell University.
Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs the continuation
of the following programs that were included in fiscal year
2001: $250,000 for wildlife services to contain crop and
aquaculture losses in southeastern Missouri; $625,000 for a
cooperative agreement with Georgia Wildlife Services and the
University of Georgia to conduct research on and control of
game bird predation in Georgia; $100,000 for trapping in
Virginia to combat increased predation by coyotes; $100,000 for
wildlife biologist to serve North Florida, southeast Louisiana,
and southwest Georgia; $150,000 for blackbird control efforts
for reduction in blackbird damage to rice; $240,000 for rodent
control in Hawaii; and $1,000,000 for predator control programs
for livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
The Committee has included additional funding for the
following items in its fiscal year 2002 appropriation for
Wildlife Services: an additional $1,000,000 for aerial
operations safety; an additional $1,000,000 for Wildlife
Services in the State of Texas to bring the Federal cost-share
into line with the national average; and an additional $500,000
for predator control in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
The Committee has provided $16,500,000 for rabies control
efforts.
Animal welfare.--The Committee has provided $15,167,000 for
animal welfare, an increase of $2,400,000 above the President's
request. The Committee directs APHIS to hire an additional 14
inspectors and support staff so that the overall number of
inspections can increase, and those facilities that are in non-
compliance may be reinspected more frequently.
Integrated Systems Acquisition Project.--The Committee has
provided $2,500,000, an increase of $1,502,000 above the
President's request, for maintenance and replacement cost of
network servers.
Wildlife Service Methods Development.--The Committee has
provided $12,955,000, an increase of $1,500,000 above the
President's request, for Wildlife Services Methods Development
to addresss infrastructure deficiencies at the National
Wildlife Research Center. The Committee expects a report from
APHIS on the extent of the deficiencies at the NWRC and the
associated costs to correct them.
The Committee directs APHIS to continue a $500,000 project
to develop a reproductive inhibitor for Canadian geese at the
National Wildlife Research Center.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports a program for
the control, management, and eradication of the imported fire
ant and provides $2,118,000 for this program, of which $45,000
is for New Mexico.
Berryman Institute.--The Committee directs the Department
to continue the current funding level for the Jack Berryman
Institute in Utah.
Avocados.--The Committee urges APHIS to continue working
closely with U.S. avocado growers in implementing procedures
for the importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs
APHIS to report on the status of Mexican avocado imports,
including any problems in pest surveys, and oversight by APHIS
personnel, including the diversion of Mexican avocados to other
than approved destinations. The Committee also directs APHIS to
report to Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the
approved areas or lengthening time periods for importation of
Mexican avocados. In addition, the Committee is concerned that
USDA's rule-making, which did not include an advanced notice of
public rule-making, has not been adequately open for comment by
domestic and international growers, and that USDA should allow
additional comment on the science supporting such expansion of
states or extension of shipping season for avocados imported
from Mexico.
Export Certification User Fees.--The Committee is aware of
user fees associated with the certification of exports of
livestock and livestock semen and embryos. The Committee is
concerned about user fees that are established at such a level
that they maintain full cost recovery and do not prohibit the
export of livestock, livestock semen and embryos and make these
products non-competitive in the international marketplace. This
Committee instructs USDA to review the current user fee
structure and to report back to this Committee on this
structure and how this structure was established. This review
should include a summary of the fees that are charged to
exporters for the various services and delineate how USDA
arrived at such fee. It is the intent of the Committee that
user fees should recover the full cost of these services
provided by USDA. USDA should consider the impact of the user
fee upon exporting entities and ensure that user fees recover
the cost incurred, but do not limit the international marketing
opportunities for livestock, livestock semen and embryos.
Control of brucellosis in wildlife in the Greater
Yellowstone Area.--The Committee urges APHIS and ARS to work
cooperatively and expeditiously with the National Park Service,
the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service to begin
implementation of a vaccination program for bison in FY 2002
and to report back to Congress annually on the dollar amounts
expended, the nature of the work funded, and the progress and
results of these efforts.
Import Inspection Activities.--The Committee is concerned
that resources of the Department of Agriculture are being used
to finance the expenses of activities not of primary benefit to
American agriculture. For example, APHIS expends valuable
resources inspecting wood packing materials that are used for
imported manufactured goods so as to guard against invasive
species. While these inspection activities are vital, their
cost should be borne by the importer of the goods. The
Committee directs the Department to provide a report prior to
the fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the nature and volume
of inspected imported materials, to what extent those items are
imported primarily for agricultural or non-agricultural use,
what the costs are for inspecting and treating items related to
non-agricultural use, and what level of fees could properly be
assessed in order to have the importer pay the cost of any
inspection or treatment.
Bird hazards/public safety.--The Committee is aware that
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and USDA have
previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to
develop a cooperative approach to resolving bird hazards to
civilian aviation in the furtherance of public safety. In
addition, FAA statistics show that Florida now experiences more
bird strikes to aircraft than any other state. The Committee is
concerned about this situation and strongly encourages the
agency to examine the feasibility of providing two additional
wildlife biologists and associated resources in Florida, as
well as initiating new methods and development activities in
Florida to strengthen the response to this increasing wildlife
hazard.
Buildings and Facilities
2001 appropriation.................................... $9,848,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 5,189,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,189,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ -2,659,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +2,000,000
The APHIS Buildings and Facilities account funds major
nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific
program activities and recurring construction, alterations,
preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS
facilities.
Committee Provisions
For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$7,189,000, a decrease of $2,659,000 below the amount available
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $2,000,000 above the
budget request.
The following table summarizes the committee's provisions:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
enacted request provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings and Facilities:
Plum Island, NY................... $3,193 $3,193 $3,193
Quarantine and seed facilities, AK $4,659 0 0
Miami Animal Import Center, FL.... ......... ......... 2,000
Basic buildings and facilities 1,996 1,996 1,996
repair, alterations, and
preventative maintenance.........
---------------------------------
Total, Buildings & Facilities... 9,848 5,189 7,189
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami International Airport Facility.--The Committee has
included an additional $2,000,000 for buildings and facilities
to cover costs associated with the new ``one-stop'' facility to
be built at Miami International Airport that will house the
Plant Protection and Quarantine Air Cargo Operations, the Plant
Inspection Station, the Canine Operations Kennel Units, and a
100 stall animal import/export center.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
2001 appropriation.................................... $65,191,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 71,430,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 71,774,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +6,583,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +344,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the
authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory
programs, AMS aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing
and effective distribution and transportation of products from
the Nation's farms.
Programs administered by this agency include market news
activities, payments to states for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading,
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation
services, and market protection and promotion.
Committee Provisions
For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$71,774,000, an increase of $6,583,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $344,000
above the budget request.
The Committee has provided $14,259,000 for the Pesticide
Data Program, and $5,900,000 for the Mandatory Price Reporting
Program, the same as the budget request.
The Committee is aware of the strong concerns that have
been raised about the Agricultural Marketing Service's
Microbiological Data Program. In particular, questions have
been raised regarding barriers that could disrupt or impede its
useful and effective implementation. The Committee further
understands that concerns have been raised about the effort by
the Department to utilize a stakeholder process, which can
review the program in terms of its goals, objectives, and
implementation plan. The Committee therefore recommends that
the Department hold a public meeting as soon as possible. The
meeting should include consumer and industry groups to ensure
that public concerns surrounding the program can be considered
by USDA.
The Committee is concerned about the problems that USDA has
experienced with the implementation of Mandatory Price
Reporting and the disruptions that these problems have caused
participants in the marketplace. The law requires the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish programs to provide price
information for cattle and hogs that is timely, accurate, and
reliable, so as to facilitate more informed marketing decisions
and promote competition in the slaughtering industry. The price
reporting system that the Secretary initiated to meet these
requirements has been less timely and, although now corrected,
reported grossly inaccurate information on the boxed beef
cutout value. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with
interested parties to develop recommendations for obtaining
more timely, consistent, meaningful and accurate data without
compromising confidentiality and to provide such
recommendations to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of
this Act.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
2001 limitation....................................... ($60,596,000)
2002 budget limitation................................ (60,596,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (60,596,000)
Comparison:
2001 limitation................................... ................
2002 budget limitation............................ ................
The Agricultural Marketing Service provides inspection,
grading, and classing services to the cotton and tobacco
industries on a user funded basis. The legislative authorities
to carry out these programs are: the U.S. Cotton Standards Act;
the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927, as amended;
the Tobacco Inspection Act; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1981; the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1985; and
the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. These programs
facilitate the interstate and foreign commerce of these
products. This is accomplished by inspecting, identifying, and
certifying the quality of these products in accordance with
official standards. Grades serve as a basis for prices and
reflect the value of the products to the producer as well as
the buyer. These programs facilitate the movement of
commodities through marketing channels in a quick, efficient,
and equitable manner.
Committee Provisions
For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides
$60,596,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
2001 and the same as the budget request.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply
(Section 32)
Marketing Agreement and Orders
2001 appropriation...................................... ($13,438,000)
2002 budget estimate.................................... (13,874,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (13,995,000)
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. (+557,000)
2002 budget estimate................................ (+121,000)
The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the
farmers' purchasing power.
The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to
encourage continued adequate production.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2000 through 2002:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2000-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 current FY 2002 budget
FY 2000 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)......... $5,735,557,955 $5,738,448,921 $6,139,942,369
Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224)........ ................. 200,000,000 .................
Less Rescission.................................... -15,000 ................. .................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service......................... -4,935,199,000 -5,127,579,000 -5,340,708,000
Commerce Department................................ -69,920,523 -72,827,819 -79,125,978
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers................................. -5,005,119,523 -5,200,406,819 -5,419,833,978
========================================================
Budget Authority....................................... 730,423,432 738,042,102 720,108,391
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year........... 112,630,114 241,269,707 218,630,609
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations................... 50,355,227 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation......................... 893,408,773 979,311,809 938,739,000
========================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Purchases...................... 399,999,997 400,000,000 400,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities............... 500,000 1,000,000 .................
Lamb Grading and Certification Support......... ................. 1,000,000 .................
Emergency Surplus Removal...................... 200,214,947 68,589,200 .................
Diversion Payments............................. 30,777,658 10,250,000 .................
Disaster Relief................................ ................. ................. .................
Specialty Crop Purchases....................... ................. 200,000,000 .................
Estimated Future Purchases..................... ................. 56,800,000 215,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement................. 631,492,602 737,639,200 615,000,000
========================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Service......................... 8,405,567 9,604,000 9,865,000
Marketing Agreements & Orders...................... 12,240,897 13,438,000 13,874,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds...................... 20,646,464 23,042,000 23,739,000
========================================================
Total, Obligations............................... 652,139,066 760,681,200 638,739,000
========================================================
Carryout............................................... 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year............. 241,269,707 218,630,609 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Provisions
For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of
$13,995,000, an increase of $557,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $121,000 above the
budget request.
Purchase of Irradiated Foods.--Should the USDA purchase
foods that have been treated with ionizing radiation for any of
its nutritional programs, the packaging shall be clearly
labeled and state that foods have been irradiated in compliance
with current FDA regulations on labeling for irradiated foods.
Payments to States and Possessions
2001 appropriation.................................... $1,347,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 1,347,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 1,347,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ ................
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to state marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information; and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State Departments of
Agriculture or similar state agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The states perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
Committee Provisions
For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $1,347,000, the same amount
available for fiscal year 2001, and the same as the budget
request.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $31,350,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 32,907,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 33,117,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +1,767,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +210,000
\1\ Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L. 106-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act).
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat,
and poultry markets is provided. The Administration monitors
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect
meat and poultry prices.
Committee Provisions
For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, the Committee provides $33,117,000, an increase
of $1,767,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001,
and an increase of $210,000 above the budget request.
Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses
2001 limitation....................................... ($42,463,000)
2002 budget limitation................................ (42,463,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (42,463,000)
Comparison:
2001 limitation................................... ................
2002 budget limitation............................ ................
The U.S. Grain Standards Act requires, with minor
exceptions, that all grain exported by grade must be officially
inspected and weighed. The agency's employees or delegated
state agencies perform original inspection and weighing
services at export port locations in the United States and
Canada. Grain which is not being exported may be inspected at
interior locations, upon request, by licensed employees of
designated state and private agencies. The agency's employees,
upon request, perform domestic original inspection and weighing
services on grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related grain
commodities. The agency's employees supervise and provide
oversight for inspectors performing official services.
committee provisions
The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and
weighing services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with
notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for
flexibility if export activities require additional supervision
and oversight or other uncontrollable factors occur.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
2001 appropriation...................................... $459,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 476,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 481,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +22,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +5,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $481,000, an increase of
$22,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $5,000 above the budget request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
2001 appropriation.................................... $695,171,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 715,542,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 720,652,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +25,481,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +5,110,000
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The major objectives of the Service are to assure that meat
and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly
labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide
continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under
the Egg Products Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen
reduction program.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry, or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to states which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $720,652,000, an increase of
$25,481,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $5,110,000 above the budget request.
The Committee provides the full amount requested for
inspection costs and for activities related to the Codex
Alimentarius.
Pathogen-reduction Through Irradiation.--It is the
Committee's understanding that Food and Drug Administration
approval of irradiation processes for meat and poultry also
serves as Food Safety Inspection Service approval, as of the
December 23, 1999 Federal Register notice. The Committee
encourages FSIS to work closely with firms wishing to include
such processes in their production, and to provide any required
review in a timely manner.
Laboratory Testing.--The Committee strongly encourages the
agency to consider outsourcing microbiological testing to
private laboratories approved by the American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (International Standards Organization)
as a method of increasing budgetary efficiencies, expediting
test turn-around time, and increasing food safety.
FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
2001 appropriation...................................... $588,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 606,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 611,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +23,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +5,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency (which includes the Commodity Credit Corporation), the
Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation
of $611,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget
request.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-
354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers
the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC); the warehouse examination function;
the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other
conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP); and farm ownership, operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs.
Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127
(1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary
offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract, a
participant's prior contract-crop acreage history and payment
yield, as well as total program participation, each contract
participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual
dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments,
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs,
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 Act provides for
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract
commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton,
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. Producers have the
option of taking a loan deficiency payment, if available, in
lieu of the marketing assistance loan.
The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of
sugar. The 1996 Act provides for a milk price support program,
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31,
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per
hundredweight in 1999. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L.
106-78, extends the milk price support program to January 1,
2001. The 1996 Act and the 1938 Act provide for a peanut loan
and poundage quota program for the 1996 through 2002 crops of
peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended
(1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a price support,
quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will, in effect, be one percentage point higher
than CCC's cost-of-money for that month.
The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the 3-entity rule is
continued.
Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various
price support and related programs have been authorized in
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's.
Operations under these programs are financed through the
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) are utilized in the administration of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the
FSA is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address
high priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of
the programs financed through the CCC.
Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities
are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations
and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as
Public Law 480.
Farm credit programs.--The Department's reorganization has
placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate
improved coordination between the credit programs and FSA's
risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs.
FSA reviews applications, makes and collects loans, and
provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under
credit reform, administrative costs associated with
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) loans are
appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and transferred to FSA
salaries and expenses.
Risk management.--Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection
for growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not
available.
Salaries and Expenses
Transfer from
Appropriation program accts. Total, FSA, S&E
2001 appropriation \1\.................................. $826,563,000 ($266,132,000) ($1,092,695,000)
2002 budget estimate.................................... 939,030,000 (274,357,000) (1,213,387,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... 945,993,000 (276,546,000) (1,222,539,000)
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +119,430,000 (+10,414,000) (+129,844,000)
2002 budget estimate................................ +6,963,000 (+2,189,000) (+9,152,000)
\1\ Excludes $50 million in supplemental funds provided by P.L. 106-387
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA),
the Committee provides an appropriation of $945,993,000 and
transfers from other accounts of $276,546,000, for a total
program level of $1,222,539,000. This is an increase of
$129,844,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001
(excluding supplementals) and an increase of $9,152,000 above
the budget request.
County Offices.--The Committee is concerned about any
Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when
the FSA office network is essential to helping farmers address
critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee
reiterates its strong view that no county office closure or
consolidation should occur except in those locations for which
closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to
ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available
to the public will not be reduced.
Location of Commodity Sales to the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC).--The Committee continues last year's
directive to the Department to increase its outreach to
producers and grain traders so as to increase the pool of CCC-
eligible vendors for any commodity sale. In particular, the
Committee expects the Department to make special efforts in
Ohio and other Great Lakes States to increase sales and
shipments from these areas.
state mediation grants
2001 appropriation...................................... $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 2,993,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 2,993,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation..................................................
2002 budget estimate................................................
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural
water loan programs, grazing on national forest system lands,
and pesticides. Grants are made to states whose mediation
programs have been certified by FSA. Grants will be solely for
operation and administration of the state's agricultural
mediation program.
Committee Provisions
For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $2,993,000, the same as the amount available
in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.
Dairy Indemnity Program
2001 appropriation...................................... $450,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 100,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 100,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. -350,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
Committee Provisions
For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $100,000, a decrease of $350,000 below the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the
budget request.
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
Farm Ownership Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers
for acquiring, enlarging, or improving farms, including farm
buildings, land development, use, and conservation, refinancing
indebtedness, and for loan closing costs.
Operating Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers for
costs incident to reorganizing a farming system for more
profitable operations, for a variety of essential farm
operating expenses such as purchase of livestock, farm
equipment, feed, seed, fertilizer, and farm supplies; for
refinancing land and water development, use, and conservation;
for refinancing indebtedness; for other farm and home needs;
and for loan closing costs.
Emergency Loans.--Makes loans in designated areas where a
natural disaster has caused a general need for agricultural
credit which cannot be met for limited periods of time by
private cooperatives or other responsible sources.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Makes loans to any
Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or
tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian
Reorganization Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted
funds, to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe's
reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, for use of the tribe or the
corporation or the members thereof.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Makes loans in
conjunction with the sale of security properties previously
acquired during the servicing of its loan portfolio.
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Makes loans to assist
foundations in financing the operation of boll weevil
eradication programs provided to farmers.
estimated loan levels
2001 loan level......................................... $3,090,216,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 3,855,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 3,855,000,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level..................................... +764,784,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm
ownership, farm operating, and emergency. In addition, the fund
makes loans to associations for Indian tribe land acquisition,
and boll weevil eradication.
committee provisions
Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for
fiscal year 2002 for the agricultural credit insurance fund
programs are: $1,128,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which
$128,000,000 is for direct loans and $1,000,000,000 for
guaranteed loans; $2,600,000,000 for farm operating loans, of
which $600,000,000 is for direct loans, $500,000,000 is for
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,500,000,000 is for
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $2,000,000 for Indian tribe land
acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for emergency disaster loans;
and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.
agriculture credit programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 Committee
FY 2001 level estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
Direct...................................................... $127,722 $128,000 $128,000
Guaranteed.................................................. 868,086 1,000,000 1,000,000
Farm operating:
Direct...................................................... 522,891 600,000 600,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed..................................... 1,075,468 1,500,000 1,500,000
Subsidized guaranteed....................................... 369,100 500,000 500,000
Emergency disaster.............................................. 24,947 25,000 25,000
Indian tribe land acquisition................................... 2,002 2,000 2,000
Boll Weevil Eradication......................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans......................................... 3,090,216 3,855,000 3,855,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
2001 appropriation........................................... $67,449,000 $49,284,000 $268,861,000
2002 budget estimate......................................... 60,427,000 124,950,000 280,595,000
Provided in the bill......................................... 60,427,000 124,950,000 282,769,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation....................................... -7,022,000 +75,666,000 +13,908,000
2002 budget estimate..................................... ............... ............... +2,174,000
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the costs of loan programs
under credit reform:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
estimate estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ $13,756,000 $3,366,000 $3,366,000
Guaranteed............................................ 4,427,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 18,183,000 7,866,000 7,866,000
=====================================================
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 47,251,000 53,580,000 53,580,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 14,738,000 52,650,000 52,650,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 30,119,000 67,800,000 67,800,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 92,108,000 174,030,000 174,030,000
=====================================================
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 322,000 118,000 118,000
Emergency disaster........................................ 6,120,000 3,363,000 3,363,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies................................. 116,733,000 185,377,000 185,377,000
=====================================================
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................... 264,731,000 272,595,000 274,769,000
Administrative expenses................................. 4,130,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses.................................. 268,861,000 280,595,000 282,769,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
2001 appropriation...................................... $65,453,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 74,752,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 75,142,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +9,689,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +390,000
Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR)
Act of 1996, Risk Management became an agency of the Department
of Agriculture, known as the Risk Management Agency (RMA),
reporting to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
RMA manages program activities in support of the Federal
crop insurance program as authorized by the Federal Crop
Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act of 1996. Functional areas of RMA
are research and development, insurance services, and
compliance whose functions include policy formulation and
procedures and regulations development. Reviews and evaluations
are conducted for overall performance to ensure the actuarial
soundness of the insurance program.
committee provisions
For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $75,142,000, an increase of $9,689,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$390,000 above the budget request.
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
2001 appropriation \\........................1 $2,804,660,000
2002 budget estimate..........................1 3,037,000,000
Provided in the bill..........................1 3,037,000,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +232,340,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Current indefinite appropriation.
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy, or $200 for all
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and
certain other farm programs. This coverage was available either
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of
1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility
for emergency crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT
coverage required to meet program requirements. Emergency loss
assistance does not include emergency loans or payment under
the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered
by FSA. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began
phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices,
except in those areas where there are insufficient private
insurance providers. The private companies serve as the sole
source for CAT coverage.
The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies
for additional ``buy-up'' coverage levels which producers may
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65
percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater
than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount is
equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 50
percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected
market price and an amount of operating and administrative
expenses.
The reform legislation included the NAP program for
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was
established as part of the Risk Management Agency, under the
FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has
been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program
activities.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic (CAT) coverage. More crops and
commodities will become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an
investment of over $8.2 billion in five years to further
improve Federal crop insurance.
Committee Provisions
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary (estimated to be $3,037,000,000 in the President's
fiscal year 2002 Budget Request), an increase of $232,340,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same as
the budget request.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under
the laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United
States, and was managed and operated in close affiliation with
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was
transferred to the Department of Agriculture by the President's
Reorganization Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established
as an agency and instrumentality of the United States under a
permanent Federal charter by Public Law 80-806, as amended. Its
operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other
specific legislation.
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation also makes available materials and facilities
required in connection with the storage and distribution of
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the
duration of conservation reserve program contracts.
Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996;
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).
The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple
(ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The
1996 Act also requires a milk price support program that begins
after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31,
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product
processors. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-78 extends
the milk price support program through January, 2001.
The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation
acreage reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the
conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve
program (WRP), and the environmental quality incentives program
(EQIP). Each of these programs is funded through the
Corporation.
The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option;
flood risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives,
and farmland protection programs.
The Corporation is managed by a board of directors
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject
to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the
board. The board consists of six members, in addition to the
Secretary, who are designated according to their positions in
the Department of Agriculture.
Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA
state and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used
to carry out Corporation activities.
The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to
$30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal Treasury and
may also be borrowed from private lending agencies.
The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity
Credit Corporation are as follows:
In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its
annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the
Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is
authorized to use its general powers only to--
(a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities
through loans, purchases, payments, and other
operations.
(b) Make available materials and facilities required
in connection with the production and marketing of
agricultural commodities.
(c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to
other government agencies, foreign governments, and
domestic, foreign or international relief or
rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic
requirements.
(d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or
disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
(e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural
commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of
domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the
development of new and additional markets, marketing
facilities, and uses for such commodities.
(f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the
development of foreign markets for agricultural
commodities.
(g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs
authorized by law.
(h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress
may specifically authorize or provide.
Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses
2001 appropriation............................. 1 $25,264,441,000
2002 budget estimate........................... 1 23,116,000,000
Provided in the bill........................... \1\ 23,116,000,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation......................... -2,148,441,000
2002 budget estimate....................... .......................
\1\ Current indefinite appropriation.
If necessary to perform the functions, duties, obligations,
or commitments of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
administrative personnel and others serving the Corporation
shall be paid from funds on hand or from those funds received
from the redemption or sale of commodities. Such funds shall
also be available to meet program payments, commodity loans, or
other obligations of the Corporation.
Committee Provisions
For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be
necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but
not previously reimbursed (estimated to be $23,116,000,000 in
the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request), a decrease of
$2,148,441,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001
and the same as the budget request.
The Committee does not recommend language as requested that
would give the Corporation the flexibility to receive
reimbursement of actual realized losses incurred to date during
the current fiscal year, in addition to the most recent actual
fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management
2001 limitation................................ $5,000,000
2002 budget estimate........................... 5,000,000
Provided in the bill........................... 5,000,000
Comparison:
2001 limitation............................ .......................
2002 budget estimate....................... .......................
The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended.
Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the
management of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA's
hazardous waste management appropriation. CCC funds operations
and maintenance costs only.
Committee Provisions
For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste
Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000,
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the
same as the budget request.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
2001 appropriation...................................... $709,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 730,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 736,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +27,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +6,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$736,000, an increase of $27,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget
request.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is the
lead Federal conservation agency for private land. SCS was
established in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil
and water conservation on the Nation's private and non-Federal
land. NRCS was established by the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The agency combines
the authorities of the former SCS and directs financial or
technical assistance programs for natural resource
conservation.
NRCS provides America's private land conservation through
local conservation districts to individuals, communities,
watershed groups, tribal governments, Federal, state, and local
agencies, and others. The NRCS staff at the local level work
with state and local conservation staff and volunteers in a
partnership to assist individuals and communities to care for
natural resources. NRCS also develops technical guidance for
conservation planning and assistance. This technical guidance
is tailored to local conditions and is widely used by NRCS
staff and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to
ensure that conservation is based on sound science.
The benefits of these activities are multifaceted,
including sustained and improved agricultural productivity;
cleaner, safer, and more dependable water supplies; reduced
damages caused by floods and other natural disasters; and an
enhanced natural resource base to support continued economic
development, recreation, and the environment.
Conservation Operations
2001 appropriation.................................... $712,545,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 773,454,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 782,762,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +70,217,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +9,308,000
The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain
agricultural productivity and protect and enhance the natural
resource base. This is done through providing America's private
land conservation to land users, communities, units of state
and local government, and other Federal agencies in planning
and implementing natural resources solutions to reduce erosion,
improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and
conserve wetlands, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, improve
air quality, improve pasture and range conditions, reduce
upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also
provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL), wetlands
(swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and conservation
reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act,
as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990, the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
committee provisions
For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $782,762,000, an increase of $70,217,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$9,308,000 above the budget request.
Pay cost.--The Committee has included $24,417,000 for
fiscal year 2002 pay costs.
State funding allocations.--The Committee is concerned that
funding allocations to the States are being reduced in
proportion to Congressional earmarks funded in the Conservation
Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the
NRCS, in making the fiscal year 2002 Conservation Operations
funding allocations to the States, to treat Congressional
earmarks as additions to the States' funding allocation. The
Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the Committee
on Appropriations, not later than 45 days after the enactment
of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2001
Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal year 2002
Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal year
2002 Congressional earmarks by State, and the total
conservation operations allocation by State.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
includes legislative language that provides $20,000,000 for the
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, an increase of
$2,000,000 above the current funding level.
Assistance to livestock producers.--The Committee urges
NRCS to target assistance to assist livestock producers comply
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for Concentrated Feeding Operations issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Small and mid-sized producers are facing
extreme financial hardships that will possibly result in the
closure of operations throughout the country.
National Water Management Center.--The Committee encourages
the NRCS to provide adequate funding to the National Water
Management Center in Lonoke, AR.
Project continuations.--The Committee has provided funding
for the following as project continuations: $290,000 for
cooperative efforts with Delaware State University; $725,000
for the Great Lakes Basin Program; $500,000 to promote
pastureland management and rotational grazing in Central New
York; $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois;
$1,500,000 for a program to improve telecommunications
capabilities in remote areas of New Mexico serving mostly
minority or disadvantaged populations; $250,000 to design and
implement natural stream restoration initiatives in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands of which $125,000 shall be for the Canaan
Valley Institute and $125,000 for the NRCS office in
Morgantown, West Virginia; $200,000 for the soil survey
geographic database to conduct digitized soil surveys in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands in conjunction with the Canaan Valley
Institute; $125,000 for a pilot AFO/CAFO project in Utah in
cooperation with the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah Cattlemen
Association, and the Utah Dairymen Association; $250,000 to
establish best management practices to individual farmers to
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds;
$250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in
the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $100,000 for the Trees Forever
Program in Iowa; and $5,000,000 for the continued
implementation and acceleration of pilot projects for
innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 percent
reduction in nutrients of wastewater discharged by animal
feeding operations and associated animal processing facilities
implemented by the not-for-profit Agriculture Facilities
Administration & Management Corporation (``AFAM''), and
entities such as the North Carolina Agricultural Finance
Authority contracted by AFAM to assist in selecting, funding,
implementing and evaluating innovative technology systems
through pilot projects.
New projects and/or continuations/increases.--The Committee
has included funding for the following continued projects with
increases or new projects: $600,000 for innovative,
collaborative approaches to protecting the resources of the
Monterey Bay Sanctuary, an increase of $100,000; $150,000 for a
cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture to expand the Wisconsin grazing lands initiative to
augment the funding that this initiative is receiving through
the environmental quality incentives program; $150,000 for the
digitization and certification of all published soil surveys
for Puerto Rico to be made available through the Internet;
$500,000 to the State of Alabama Soil and Water Conservation
Committee for the Sand Mountain Water Quality Conservation
Project; an additional $575,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission for a
total of $1,000,000; $350,000 for technical assistance to the
Westchester Soil and Conservation District to address land use
and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound, an
increase of $50,000; $650,000 for technical assistance to
implement the second phase of a multi-year agreement between
NRCS and the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) in Walton,
NY, of which $80,000 should be designated for perpetual
stewardship funding for easements purchased by the WAC's Whole
Farm Easement Program; $300,000 for technical assistance to the
Lake Tahoe Basin Soil Conservation Project, an increase of
$50,000; $125,000 for an agriculture enhancement/open space
plan in CA; $1,000,000 for a cooperative agreement with the
Manatee (FL) Agriculture Water Reuse System project; $300,000
for the Beaver Swamp Brook project in New York; $600,000 for
the refinement, integration, and implementation of computer
tools to improve nutrient management planning on dairy farms in
New York; $50,000 for the evaluation of dairy cattle manure as
a biofuel in North Carolina; $1,000,000 for the Maumee
Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Plan in
northwest Ohio; $500,000 to facilitate water conservation and
efficient irrigation activities in the Bexar, Medina, Uvalde
Counties (TX) area of the Edwards Aquifer; $1,500,000 for a
field office telecommunications pilot program in West Texas;
$2,000,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Global
Environment Management Education Center land use program at
Stevens Point, WI; and $600,000 for a watershed management
demonstration program.
Embrass River/Shad Lake.--The Committee encourages the NRCS
to provide technical assistance for the Embrass River Watershed
and Shad Lake in Illinois.
Illinois River Basin.--The Committee directs the NRCS to
use up to $600,000 in EQIP funds for conservation measures in
the Illinois River Basin.
Urban encroachment.--The Committee recognizes the major
difficulties created by the encroachment of urban areas on
rural areas. The Committee believes that there is a need to
develop a more comprehensive and integrated view of
transportation, land use by commercial, residential,
agricultural, and public entities. The Committee directs the
Service to develop a proposal for such a comprehensive view,
including consultation with entities such as the American
Farmland Trust and the Nature Conservancy. In the development
of this proposal, the Committee expects the Service to identify
pilot projects for this activity, including highway development
in northwest Ohio.
Conservation Reserve Program.--The Committee has included
$39,000,000 for technical assistance for the conservation
reserve program, of which $8,500,000 shall be derived from CCC
section 11 reimbursements.
Watershed Management and Demonstration.--The Committee has
provided funding for a cooperative agreement with the Texas
Institute of Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) for
watershed management and demonstration projects coordinated
jointly by the National Pork Producers Council, Iowa Soybean
Association and TIAER. The projects will utilize water quality
research, demonstrating a voluntary and incentive driven
certification program that will help row crop and livestock
agricultural producers comply with national environmental water
quality regulations. The Committee encourages NRCS to work with
these groups to identify additional federal resources available
for the demonstration program and provide necessary technical
assistance.
Water quality/Upper White River Basin, MO.--The Committee
directs the NRCS to study the establishment of a water quality
office serving the Upper White River Basin in Missouri. The
Committee directs the Service to report on the five-year cost,
and the level of financial and human resources that would be
required to establish such an office. The Committee directs the
Service to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations
by March 1, 2002 on this issue.
Source Water Protection Initiative.--NRCS is strongly
encouraged to provide support and assistance to the local
watershed associations in Ohio, Indiana and Missouri working on
the Source Water Protection Initiative.
Weed It Now.--The Committee directs the NRCS to fund the
Nature Conservancy's Weed It Now (WIN) initiative in the
Southern Taconic Mountains of Massachusetts, New York, and
Connecticut.
Forest Health.--In light of severe damage to forest health
from the pine beetle infestation in Tennessee, the Committee
recognizes the need for reforestation activities as a result of
this devastating outbreak and strongly encourages the Secretary
of Agriculture to work with Tennessee's state forester to
mitigate this emergency.
watershed surveys and planning
2001 appropriation.................................... $10,844,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 10,960,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 11,030,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +186,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +70,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the Act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigations Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
River Basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, state, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis of coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal government and the states and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watershed of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. Watershed planning consists
of assisting local organizations to develop their watershed
work plan by making investigations and surveys in response to
requests made by sponsoring local organizations. These plans
describe the soil erosion, water management, and sedimentation
problems in a watershed and works of improvement proposed to
alleviate these problems. Plans also include estimated benefits
and costs, cost sharing and operating and maintenance
arrangements, and other appropriate information necessary to
justify Federal assistance for carrying out the plan.
committee provisions
For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $11,030,000, an increase of $186,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$70,000 above the budget request.
watershed and flood prevention operations
2001 appropriation \1\................................ $99,224,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 100,413,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 105,743,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +6,519,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +5,330,000
\1\ Excludes $110 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided in P.L. 106-387
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-
1009), provides for cooperation among the Federal government,
the states, and local political subdivisions in a program to
prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the
watersheds or rivers and streams, and to further the
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The work of the Department under this item includes
financial assistance for the installation of works of
improvement specified in approved watershed work plans
including structural measures, land treatment measures, and
program evaluation studies in selected watershed projects to
determine the effectiveness of structural and land treatment
measures installed. In addition, NRCS makes loans to local
organizations to finance the local share of the costs of
installing planned works of improvement.
committee provisions
For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $105,743,000, an
increase of $6,519,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 2001 and an increase of $5,330,000 above the budget
request. Language is included which limits the amount spent on
technical assistance to not more than $45,514,000.
The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue
on the following projects: the four pilot projects in North
Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; Glen
Shoals Lake in Illinois; Little Red River and the Big Slough
Watersheds in Arkansas; Soap Creek Watershed in Iowa; and the
Chino Dairy Preserve, San Bernardino, California.
The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide technical and
financial assistance to the following projects: Wet Walnut
Creek Watershed in Kansas; Truth or Consequences/Williamsburg
Arroyos Watershed in New Mexico; Caney Creek project in Grayson
County, KY; the Swan Porter (NC) Project; Bayou Bourbeux
Watershed Project in Opelousas, LA; to address flooding
problems in Lavaca, AR; and Town Creek in Carthage, MS.
Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed.--The Committee directs the
NRCS to fund the Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed project in
Texas at the future obligation request level proposed by the
Texas-NRCS.
DuPage County, IL.--The Committee includes funds for DuPage
County, Illinois for financial and technical assistance at the
same level provided in fiscal year 2001.
Beardsley Wash Watershed.--The Committee urges the NRCS to
complete the Beardsley Wash Watershed Project in Ventura
County, CA.
Snake River Project.--The Committee urges the NRCS to
complete the Snake River Project in Warren, MN.
Oven Run Project.--The Committee urges the NRCS to complete
the sixth and final site on the Oven Run (PA) project.
Devils Lake.--The Committee is aware of continued flooding
in the Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the
lake has risen 25 feet over the last several years. The
Committee encourages, the NRCS in cooperation with the FSA to
assist in the locally coordinated flood response and water
management activities being developed with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. NRCS and FSA utilize conservation
programs in providing water holding and storage areas on
private land as necessary intermediate measures in watershed
management.
resource conservation and development
2001 appropriation.................................... $41,923,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 43,048,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 48,361,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +6,438,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +5,313,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work
plans for resource conservation and development projects in
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and
water conservation practices.
committee provisions
For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $48,361,000, an increase of
$6,438,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $5,313,000 above the budget request.
The Committee notes that in addition to the 25 new RC&D
councils that were funded in fiscal year 2001, an additional 8
councils were funded from the Fund for Rural America. The
annual cost for these eight councils is approximately
$1,000,000. The Committee has included funds to maintain
funding for these eight councils. In addition, the Committee
has included $1,438,000 to cover the fiscal year 2002 pay cost.
The Committee directs that $3,000,000 be used to fund the
backlog of 27 pending applications for new councils, and
$1,000,000 be used to increase the per council allocation
closer to the $161,000 level recommended by the USDA.
forestry incentives program
2001 appropriation...................................... $6,311,000
2002 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. -6,311,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. The program
will be carried out by providing technical assistance and long-
term cost sharing agreements with private landowners.
committee provisions
The Committee concurs with the President's budget and does
not provide funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. This
program promotes timber production on private lands, and in
support of the budget these efforts will be continued through
the State and Private Forestry program in the Forest Service.
agricultural conservation program
(rescission of funds)
The Committee has included a rescission of Agricultural
Conservation Program funds that were made available under
Public Law 104-37. This program was terminated at the beginning
of 1997 in accordance with the 1996 Farm Bill. The USDA has
indicated that there are no plans to obligate any of these
funds.
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing Service, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service and
placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for
Rural Development. These agencies deliver a variety of programs
through a network of state, district, and county offices.
In the 1930's and 1940's these agencies were primarily
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these
agencies have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout
all America providing loan and grant assistance for single
family, multi-family, housing, and special housing needs, as
well as a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and
business development programs.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
2001 appropriation...................................... $604,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 623,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 628,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +24,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +5,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural
Utilities Service.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$628,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee expects the Department to give consideration
to the following organizations or projects requesting
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and
other rural development programs only when such applications
are judged to be meritorious when subject to established review
procedures: funds to Taylor County, FL to expand water service
into unincorporated areas and for a wastewater treatment plant;
funds for a water treatment facility for the City of Toloun,
IL; assistance for a new water well for the Village of
Granville, IL; funds for a wastewater system for the City of
Armington, IL; VAW water service for Bankhead Forest, Lawrence
County, AL; grant to Marion County, AL for Agri-Civic Center;
grant for community development for the City of Port Allen, LA;
water/wastewater improvements for Livingston Parish, LA;
Ascension Parish (LA) for water/wastewater improvements;
community development and infrastructure for Iberville Parish,
LA; community development for Clinton, LA; historic building
repair for St. Helena Parish, LA; assistance to Craig, Floyd,
and Grayson Counties, VA for Industrial Shell Buildings;
assistance to develop business incubators in Buchanan County
and for the Virginia Highlands incubator; assistance for the
Southwest Regional Enterprise Center, VA; assistance to the
Dickinson County, VA kitchen incubator; Oklahoma Center for
Rural Development at Northeastern State University; grant to
Buck Spring 4-H Center in Warren County, NC; Cross Plains, TN
for a new sewer system; assistance for a Rural Development
Center at Louisiana Tech University; assistance for a public
safety communication system in Curry County, OR; grant to the
City of Washington, PA Recreation and Community Economic
Development Center; assistance to the Lawrence County, PA Fair
board for a 4-H barn; grant to the City of Falfurrais, TX for
street storm drain and sewer repair; assistance for water/
sewer/roads at Dunn Richman Research Park, IL; a grant to the
City of Jasper, FL to expand water and sewer systems; new water
system for Brookport, IL; rescheduling or forgiveness for rural
development loans issued to the Green County, KY Sanitation
District #1; assistance to expand the Western Kentucky Growers
Cooperative; funds for the Southern Plains Conference Center in
Woodward, OK; assistance to the City of Chatahoochee (FL) to
upgrade wastewater treatment plant; funds for a community
facility for the City of Greensburg, PA; the Vandalia (WV)
Heritage Foundations Program for Revitalization through
community development; funds to construct livestock barns, a
vocational agriculture complex, and exhibit hall at the
Antalope Valley (CA) Fairgrounds; funds to construct an
equestrian center at the Erie County Fairgrounds in Hamburg,
New York; rural development through the internet in MS;
assistance to construct a wastewater treatment facility to
serve Oxnard, CA and the Port Hueneme (CA) Water Agency; funds
for a wastewater treatment facility for the City of Negaunee,
MI; grant to Lamar County, AL for safe water; funds for a rural
event center business development project, Rio Arriba County,
(NM); funds to construct the second phase of the Paseo del
Canon Drainage Channel in Taos, NM; assistance to improve the
Alcalde (NM) water system; grant to the Town of Spinger, NM to
improve wastewater treatment; funds for a water pipeline in San
Jon, NM; assistance to the City of Greenville (FL) for water
system improvements; funds for a wastewater treatment plant in
Questa, NM; funds to assist with the development of the Purdue
Regional Technology Center (IN); grant to Klamath and Lake
Counties (OR) for the development of a geothermal--agricultural
industrial park; assistance to Rural Enterprises Inc. for
development, marketing, implementation of a rural
infrastructure tax-exempt loan pool through a bond issue in
Durant, OK; assistance to Wakulla County (FL) to expand water/
wastewater; a rural business enterprise grant for a value-added
export center at Arkansas State University; a rural business
opportunity grant for a cheese processing facility in
Washington County, VA; a rural business opportunity grant to
the West Central (OH) Port Authority; grant for improvements to
St. James Parish and St. John (LA) Parish water/wastewater
systems; assistance to the Kiski Basin Initiative Economic
Action Program (PA); assistance for the development and
construction of the Agribusiness Center in Statesboro, GA;
assistance to Gadsden County (FL) Agriculture Center expansion;
grant to the City of Lee (FL) for wastewater treatment
improvements; funds for water/wastewater improvement in Madison
County, FL; a grant to the Suwannee River (FL) Water Management
District to build new sewer lines into the system; funds to
assist in the development of ``The Chavez Center'' in Keene,
CA; funds for wastewater treatment systems in Goldsboro,
Henderson, Marydel, Templeville, Carpenter's Point, Willards,
and Cecilton (MD); assistance for slaughterhouse/processing
modernization in Vermont; a grant to establish a molded
strawboard manufacturing plant in northwest Ohio; assistance to
help fund a Mobile Asthma Care Program at Valley Children's
Hospital (CA); funds to establish a Pediatric Nursing
Internship Program at Valley Children's Hospital (CA);
financial assistance for design work on the Commonwealth Agri-
Energy Ethanol Production Plant (KY); assistance to Jefferson
County (MS) for water and sewer facilities; Phase III of the
Regional Waste water collection system Homosassa (FL); funds
for neighborhood revitalization program for Alachua County, FL;
financial assistance to the Indian Waters Central Sewer
Project, Citrus County, FL; consideration for funds to St.
Tammany Parish, Washington Parish and Tangipahoa Parish (LA) to
expand water service into unincorporated areas, and provide
wastewater improvements to existing facilities; funds for
Village of Deposit (NY) for municipal water system upgrades;
South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency for surface and ground water improvements in
the Lake Tahoe Basin; grant to upgrade and repair the municipal
sewer system in the Village of Saugerties, New York; and water
system improvements in Aberdeen, ID.
The Committee has included $200,000 to fund the completion
of a study underway by the National Ground Water Association.
rural development salaries and expenses
Committee
FY 2001 estimate FY 2002 estimate provisions
Appropriations............................................ $130,084,000 $133,722,000 $134,733,000
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account..... 408,333,000 419,741,000 422,910,000
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 34,640,000 35,604,000 36,322,000
Program Account......................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.................. 2,993,000 0 3,107,000
Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.............. 0 3,082,000 0
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........... 3,632,000 3,733,000 3,761,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, RD Salaries and Expenses..................... 579,682,000 595,882,000 600,833,000
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
committee provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission
areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $134,733,000,
an increase of $4,649,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 2001 and an increase of $1,011,000 above the budget
request.
rural community advancement program
2001 appropriation...................................... \1\$760,864,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 692,125,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 767,465,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +6,601,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +75,340,000
\1\ Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L. 106-387.
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to
applicant needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding will be allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural
community facilities. Loans are made to organizations,
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated
for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct,
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities
providing essential services to rural residents. Such
facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development such as fire and rescue services, health
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social,
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), would be used in conjunction with the existing
direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of
community facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and
community centers. Grants will be targeted to the lowest income
communities. Communities that have lower population and income
levels would receive a higher cost-share contribution through
these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the
cost of developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the
purpose of improving, developing or financing business,
industry, and employment or improving the economic and
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings,
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital.
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less
than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made not to exceed
$1,500,000 annually to public bodies and private nonprofit
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train,
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership
development; and to establish centers for training, technology,
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D,
309A, and 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes
loans for water and waste development costs. Development loans
are made to associations, including corporations operating on a
nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar organizations,
generally designated as public or quasipublic agencies that
propose projects for the development, storage, treatment,
purification, and distribution of domestic water or the
collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas.
Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of the development cost
of the projects and can supplement other funds borrowed or
furnished by applicants to pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as
amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
committee provisions
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations as compared to the budget request:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 Committee
level estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
Community facility loans:
Guaranteed............... 0 0 0
Direct................... $29,161 $13,545 $13,545
Community facility grants.... 23,947 18,958 20,958
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, housing...... 53,108 32,503 34,503
======================================
Business:
Business and industry loans:
Guaranteed............... $13,354 $27,400 $27,400
Direct................... 2,904 0 0
Rural business enterprise 45,564 40,568 42,568
grants......................
Rural business opportunity 2,993 3,000 4,000
grants......................
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, business..... 64,815 70,968 73,968
======================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal
loans:
Guaranteed............... 0 0 0
Direct................... $109,953 $55,664 $55,664
Water and waste disposal 529,498 529,490 599,830
grants......................
Solid waste management grants 3,492 3,500 3,500
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities.... 642,942 588,654 658,994
======================================
Total, loans and grants \1\760,864 692,125 767,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L. 106-387.
The following earmarks are included in bill language for
the Rural Community Advancement Program: $24,000,000 for
Federally recognized Native American Tribes, of which
$4,000,000 is for community facilities grants to tribal
colleges, and of which $250,000 is for transportation technical
assistance; $6,000,000 for the Rural Community Development
Initiative; $500,000 for rural transportation technical
assistance; $2,000,000 for grants to Mississippi Delta Region
counties; $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems in
the Colonias; $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems
in Alaska; $16,215,000 for technical assistance for rural water
and waste systems; $11,000,000 for a circuit rider program; and
$37,624,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities
(EZ/EC) and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, of which
$1,163,000 is for community facilities, of which $27,431,000
shall be for rural utilities programs, and of which $9,030,000
shall be for the rural business and cooperative development
programs.
Circuit rider program.--The Committee has provided
$11,000,000 for a circuit rider program. The Committee expects
that this will provide sufficient funds for a third circuit
rider in each of the states.
Rural Community Development Initiative.--The Committee has
provided $6,000,000 for the RCDI. The Committee notes that no
fiscal year 2001 funds have been obligated to date for this
program. The Committee directs the USDA to provide a report to
the Committee on Appropriations by February 1, 2002, on the
demand for this program.
Rural Community Assistance Programs.--The Committee directs
that, of the funds provided for rural waste systems, $7,300,000
is designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs.
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.--The Committee is
concerned that the Department is not properly awarding the full
complement of discretionary points to applications for rural
development programs submitted by the Sullivan-Wawarsing Rural
Economic Area Partnership Zone. The Committee directs the
Department to comply with the Memoranda of Agreement signed by
the Secretary on May 10, 1999 establishing the Zone regarding
the award of discretionary points.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in 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.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
2001 loan and grant levels............................ $4,476,160,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 4,470,648,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 4,470,648,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level................................... -5,512,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made
to construct, improve, alter, repair or replace dwellings and
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size,
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans, are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor
housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a
public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest
living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor.
Loan programs are limited to rural areas which include towns,
villages, and other places of not more than 10,000 population,
which are not part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in
areas with a population in excess of 10,000, but less than
20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan
statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for
low- and moderate-income borrowers.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund program account:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2001 level FY 2002 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans and Grant:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct......................................... $1,064,651 $1,064,650 $1,064,650
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ 3,136,429 3,137,968 3,137,968
Rental housing (sec. 515).......................... 114,070 114,068 114,068
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. 99,780 99,770 99,770
Housing repair (sec. 504).......................... 32,324 32,324 32,324
Credit sales of acquired property.................. 11,779 11,778 11,778
Housing site development (sec. 524)................ 5,152 5,090 5,090
Self-help housing land development fund............ 4,998 5,000 5,000
Modular Housing Demonstration:
Loans.......................................... 1,988 0 0
Grants......................................... 4,989 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorization........................ 4,476,160 4,470,648 4,470,648
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated loan subsidy, grants, and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed Administrative
subsidy loan subsidy Grants expenses
2001 appropriation.............................. $240,190,000 $8,901,000 $4,989,000 $408,333,000
2002 budget estimate............................ 199,800,000 44,087,000 0 419,741,000
Provided in the bill............................ 199,800,000 44,087,000 0 422,910,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation............................ -40,390,000 +35,186,000 -4,989,000 +14,577,000
2002 budget estimate.......................... .............. .............. .............. +3,169,000
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well
as for administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal
year 2001 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as
set by the Office of Management and Budget.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2001 level FY 2002 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan
subsidies):
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct......................................... $170,983 $140,108 $140,108
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ 7,384 40,166 40,166
Rental housing (sec. 515).......................... 56,202 48,274 48,274
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. 1,517 3,921 3,921
Housing repair (sec. 504).......................... 11,456 10,386 10,386
Credit sales of acquired property.................. 872 750 750
Housing site development (sec. 524)................ 0 28 28
Self-help housing land development fund............ 278 254 254
Modular Housing Demonstration:
Loans.......................................... 399 0 0
Grants......................................... 4,989 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................ 254,080 243,887 243,887
RHIF expenses:
Administrative expenses............................ 408,333 419,741 422,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rental assistance program
2001 appropriation.................................... $678,504,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 693,504,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 693,504,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +15,000,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
established a rural rental assistance program to be
administered through the rural housing loans programs.
The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by
low-income families living in Rural Housing Service financed
rental projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this
program, 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 provisions
For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a
program level of $693,504,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above
the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the
budget request.
mutual and self-help housing grants
2001 appropriation...................................... $33,925,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 33,925,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 33,925,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation..................................................
2002 budget estimate................................................
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations
to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs
under which groups of usually six to ten families build their
own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to
pay the cost of construction supervisors who will work with
families in the construction of their homes and for
administrative expenses of the organizations providing the
self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $33,925,000, the same as the
amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget
request.
farm labor program account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 appropriation........................................ $28,460,000 $14,967,000 $14,967,000
2002 budget estimate...................................... 28,459,000 13,464,000 14,967,000
Provided in the bill...................................... 28,459,000 13,464,000 17,967,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................... -1,000 -1,503,000 +3,000,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. ................ ................ +3,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514, and the rural housing for domestic farm
labor housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms and infirmaries.
committee provisions
For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides
a loan subsidy of $13,464,000 which supports a loan level of
$28,459,000, a decrease of $1,503,000 in loan subsidy and a
decrease of $1,000 in loan level below the amount available in
fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request. The
Committee also provides an additional $17,967,000 in grants, an
increase of $3,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal
year 2001 and an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget
request. Of the $17,967,000 in grants, $15,000,000 is for farm
labor housing grants and $2,967,000 is for grants for migrant
and seasonal farmworkers.
The Committee notes that the Administration has provided
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $1,500,000 in
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $2,852,000 for
farmworker housing for fiscal year 2001. These additional
funding levels are not indicated in the previous table.
rural housing assistance grants
2001 appropriation...................................... $43,903,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 38,914,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 38,914,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. -4,989,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The following programs are consolidated under the Rural
Housing Assistance Grants: very low-income housing repair
grants, rural housing preservation grants, compensation for
construction defects, and supervisory and technical assistance
grants.
The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is
authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of
1949, as amended. The program makes grants to very low-income
families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to
make such dwellings, safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to
the health of the occupants, their families, or the community.
A grant can be made in combination with a Section 504 very low-
income housing repair loan.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair
for low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the
preservation program is to improve the delivery of
rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing
organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will
compete on a state-by-state basis for grants funds. These funds
may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to
finance home repair. The program is administered by local
grantees.
Compensation for Construction Defects provides funds for
grants to eligible section 502 borrowers to correct structural
defects, or to pay claims of owners arising from such defects
on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial
assistance.
The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is
carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants
are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for
packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502,
504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as
amended. The assistance is directed to underserved areas where
at least 20 percent or more of the population is at or below
the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the
population resides in substandard housing. Under section 525,
grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations
and other associations for the developing, conducting,
administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory
assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal,
State, and local housing programs for low-income families in
rural areas.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $38,914,000, a decrease
of $4,989,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2001
and the same as the budget request.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally-
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
committee provisions
Current economic conditions, together with the rapid
changes taking place throughout the global economy, underscore
the need for policies and programs to strengthen the ability of
farmers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts to
improve their income, manage their risk, move more into value-
added production and processing, and capture a larger share of
the consumer dollar. Programs carried out by Cooperative
Services within the Rural Business and Cooperative Service as
authorized under the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7
U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b)), including those related to research,
education and technical assistance, play an important role in
helping promote such cooperative self-help efforts for the
benefit of farmers. Accordingly, the Committee believes such
programs should be given a high priority to ensure the levels
of funding and staffing necessary to meet their objectives.
rural development loan fund program account
estimated loan level
2001 loan level......................................... $38,172,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 38,171,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 38,171,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level..................................... -1,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses,
community development corporations private nonprofit
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of
improving business, industry, community facilities, and
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in
rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2002, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Committee Provisions
For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the
Committee provides for a loan level of $38,171,000, a decrease
of $1,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the
same as the budget request.
The Committee notes that the Administration has provided
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $2,000,000 in
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $7,671,000 for
fiscal year 2001. These additional funding levels are not
indicated in the previous table.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
2001 appropriation.................. $19,433,000 $3,632,000
2002 budget estimate................ 16,494,000 3,733,000
Provided in the bill................ 16,494,000 3,761,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.............. -2,939,000 +129,000
2002 budget estimates........... ................ +28,000
rural economic development loans program account
estimated loan level
2001 loan level......................................... $14,969,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 14,966,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 14,966,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level..................................... -3,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L.
100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936,
by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural
Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of
credits payment program and created the rural economic
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized
under the Act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies,
start-up costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose
of fostering rural economic development.
committee provisions
For the Rural Economic Development Loans program account,
the Committee provides for a loan level of $14,966,000, a
decrease of $3,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year
2001 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee notes that the Administration has provided
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $3,000,000 in
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $5,892,000 for
fiscal year 2001. These additional funding levels are not
indicated in the previous table.
estimated loan subsidy
Direct loan subsidy
2001 appropriation...................................... \1\ $3,902,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 3,616,000
Provided in the bill.................................... \1\ 3,616,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. -286,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rural cooperative development grants
2001 appropriation.................................... \1\ $6,486,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 6,486,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,500,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +1,014,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +1,014,000
\1\ Excludes $10 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
provided by P.L. 106-387.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-federal sources. Grants are competitive and
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA)
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State department of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204(b). The funds are used for Cooperative Research
Agreements, primarily with colleges and universities to address
critical operational, organizational and structural issues
facing cooperatives.
Committee Provisions
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $7,500,000, an increase of
$1,014,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $1,014,000 above the budget request.
Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,500,000 is provided
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
2001 appropriation.................................... (\1\)
2002 budget estimate.................................. $14,967,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 14,967,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +14,967,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
\1\ Funds provided in P.L. 106-377 in fiscal year 2001.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized five new
empowerment zones, and 20 new enterprise communities were
authorized by the 1999 Appropriations Act. These 25 designated
EZ/ECs make up Round II. The goal of the Empowerment Zone/
Enterprise Community Initiative is to revitalize rural
communities in a manner that attracts private sector investment
and thereby provides self-sustaining community and economic
development. The first three years of the ten years authorized
for Round II EZ/ECs has been funded through the 1999, 2000, and
2001 Appropriations Acts.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $14,967,000,
an increase of $14,967,000 above the amount available in fiscal
year 2001 and the same as the budget request.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
2001 loan level......................................... $3,110,321,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 3,110,292,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 4,610,292,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level..................................... +1,499,971,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +1,500,000,000
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.), as amended provides the statutory authority for the
electric and telecommunications programs.
Committee Provisions
The Committee has included an increase of $500,000 in the
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program
administrative expenses transfer for additional administrative
expenses due to the recommended loan levels in the electric
municipal rate and FFB accounts, which account for an increase
of $1,500,000,000 above the President's request.
The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural
Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5%........................................ $121,128 $121,107 $121,107
Direct, Municipal rate............................ 294,358 294,358 794,358
Direct, FFB....................................... 1,600,000 1,600,000 2,600,000
Direct, Treasury Rate............................. 500,000 500,000 500,000
Guaranteed electric............................... 100,000 100,000 100,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 2,615,486 2,615,465 4,115,465
=====================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5%........................................ 74,835 74,827 74,827
Direct, Treasury rate............................. 300,000 300,000 300,000
Direct, FFB....................................... 120,000 120,000 120,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 494,835 494,827 494,827
=====================================================
Total, Loan authorizations.................... 3,110,321 3,110,292 4,610,292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
2001 appropriation........................................ $40,275,000 $10,000 $34,640,000
2002 budget estimate...................................... 5,645,000 80,000 35,604,000
Provided in the bill...................................... 5,645,000 80,000 36,322,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................... -34,630,000 +70,000 +1,682,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. ................ ................ +718,000
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well
as for administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal
year 2001 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as
set by the Office of Management and Budget.
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5%........................................ $12,064 $3,609 $3,609
Direct, Municipal rate............................ 20,458 0 0
Direct, Treasury Rate............................. 0 0 0
Direct, FFB....................................... 0 0 0
Private Sector Guarantee.......................... 10 80 80
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 32,532 3,689 3,689
=====================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5%........................................ 7,753 1,736 1,736
Direct, Treasury rate............................. 0 300 300
Direct, FFB....................................... 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 7,753 2,036 2,036
Total, Loan subsidies......................... 40,285 5,725 5,725
=====================================================
E & T expenses:
Administrative expenses........................... 34,640 35,604 36,322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
2001 loan level......................................... $174,615,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 0
Provided in the bill.................................... 174,615,000
Comparison:
2001 loan level.....................................................
2002 budget estimate................................ +174,615,000
The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of Federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Committee Provisions
For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a
loan level of $174,615,000, the same as the amount available in
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $174,615,000 above the
budget request.
The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal
year 2001 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank
Liquidating Account to pay for administrative expenses of the
Rural Telephone Bank.
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
2001 appropriation.................. $2,584,000 $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate................ 0 3,082,000
Provided in the bill................ 2,584,000 3,107,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.............. ................ +114,000
2002 budget estimate............ +2,584,000 +25,000
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2002, as well as for administrative
expenses.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
2001 appropriation............................................ $400,000,000 0 $26,941,000
2002 budget estimate.......................................... 400,000,000 0 26,941,000
Provided in the bill.......................................... 400,000,000 0 26,941,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation........................................ ................ .............. ..............
2002 budget estimates..................................... ................ .............. ..............
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was
authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve
the quality of phone services, provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
Committee Provisions
For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $26,941,000, the same as
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the
budget request.
The Committee notes that contingent upon authorizing
legislation, $1,996,000 will be transferred from distance
learning and telemedicine grants to broadband telecommunication
grants and $100,000,000 will be provided for broadband
telecommunication loans.
The Committee expects the Department to give consideration
to the following projects or organizations requesting
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Program: The development of an assessment and implementation
plan for expanded telemedicine services in rural Virginia
through the George Mason University (VA) School of Nursing;
development of an e-Health and Telemedicine program through the
Valley Children's Hospital (CA); assistance to the Hampshire
Education Collaborative to create a distance learning and
professional development program throughout Franklin,
Hampshire, and Hampden Counties, MA; assistance to the College
of Southern Idaho to expand educational program capabilities to
serve rural communities; assistance for distance learning and
instructional equipment for the Petit Jean College (AR)
Business and Technology Center; funds to develop a Material
Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Arkansas
at Little Rock; the development and delivery of educational
materials for an aquaculture education and training program by
the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution and Florida State
University; assistance to Darton College (GA) for distance
learning; and assistance for the Louisiana Online project to
provide communications access to rural areas through Nicholls
State University, Louisiana Tech University, and Southeastern
Louisiana University.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established
review procedures.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
2001 appropriation...................................... $569,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 587,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 592,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +23,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +5,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food, nutrition and consumer activities. The
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the
Food and Nutrition Service.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services the Committee provides $592,000, an
increase of $23,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year
2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).--The Committee is aware
of the importance of ensuring that farmers participating in the
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) and the Food Stamp
Program (FSP) are able to participate in Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) systems. In addition, the Committee notes that
USDA has studied and established the technical feasibility of
wireless and other innovative EBT systems for farmers markets,
rural route vendors, and other ``non-traditional'' vendors
operating without access to standard telephone and electricity
service.
The Committee directs USDA to make available funds from the
$6 million designated for the development of EBT systems to
support state initiatives to implement wireless and other
innovative EBT solutions for farmers markets, farmers, and
other retail vendors participating in the WIC FMNP and the FSP
to enable them to continue participating in these programs. As
EBT systems replace paper coupons in more states, this will
assure that participants in the WIC FMNP and FSP can continue
to purchase nutritious locally grown agricultural products,
especially fresh fruits and vegetables, and promote compliance
with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
Fresh Produce Purchases.--The Committee urges the Food and
Nutrition Service to study the feasibility of an incentive
pilot program to increase produce consumption under the Food
Stamp Program and the Special Supplemental Program for Women,
Infants, and Children. The pilot program should be based on
participation rates and nutrition health status, with the goal
of providing incentives to increase produce consumption.
Increased produce consumption could enhance the control of
adverse health conditions such as diabetes, high blood
pressure, and osteoporosis.
Meal Costs and Reimbursements.--The Committee is concerned
about the effect of rising food and labor costs to school meal
programs. The Committee understands that the reimbursement
rates for school meals are adjusted annually according to the
Consumer Price Index series for food away from home. Changes in
the labor market may have caused wages for school food service
personnel to increase at a rate faster than the index
benchmark, and local or regional cost factors may affect the
sufficiency of the reimbursement rates. The Committee
understands that an analysis to address similar concerns was
last conducted in 1993, and requests a report to the Committee
by January 31, 2002, about Department plans to update this
data.
Milk Beverages.--The Committee encourages the Department to
consider developing a pilot program in which milk beverage
machines are placed in schools, and suggests that the state of
Iowa be considered a candidate for such a program.
School Lunch Salad Bars.--The Committee is concerned about
school lunch nutrition, and in particular about increasing the
consumption of fruits and vegetables among children. The
Committee directs the Department to analyze data collected in
the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, Part II to
compare the amount of fruit and vegetables available to
children in schools with salad/fruit bars versus those without
salad/fruit bars. The Committee requests a report on this
analysis by April 1, 2002.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in
this country. Nutrition assistance programs are intended to
provide access to a nutritionally adequate diet for families
and persons with low-incomes, and encourage better eating
patterns among the Nation's children. These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--Federal assistance is provided
to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and
breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades
or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers
and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to
improve the health and 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.
Food Stamp Program.--This program is aimed at making more
effective use of the Nation's food supply and at improving
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also
includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. The Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized
a block grant for Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico which
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a
nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to
the needs of its low-income households.
The program includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program. The program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants,
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by
providing food packages designed to supplement each
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking.
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other
approved methods which a cooperating State health agency may
select.
The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides WIC or WIC-
eligible participants with coupons to purchase fresh,
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables,
from farmers' markets. The program is designed to accomplish
two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible
participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers'
markets by low-income households.
The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP).--This program
combines funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP).
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding
women with low-incomes who reside in approved project areas. In
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects
directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for
needy individuals.
Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting
administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use
in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS
administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all
disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
Food Program Administration.--This account represents most
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion (CNPP). The Center oversees improvements in and
revisions to the nutrition guidance systems. CNPP is the focal
point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and
education policy to improve the health of all Americans.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from
general and continued hunger.
child nutrition programs
Direct Transfer from Total program
appropriation section 32 level
2001 appropriation..................................... $4,413,931,000 $5,127,579,000 $9,541,510,000
2002 budget estimate................................... 4,731,490,000 5,357,256,000 10,088,746,000
Provided in the bill................................... 4,748,038,000 5,340,708,000 10,088,746,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................. +334,107,000 +213,129,000 +547,236,000
2002 budget estimate............................... +16,548,000 -16,548,000 .................
Working through State agencies, the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) provides Federal assistance in cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the
School Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program; the Summer
Food Service Program; and Child and Adult Care Food Programs.
In addition, the Special Milk Program provides funding for milk
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit
child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level.
FNS provides cash subsidies to State administered programs and
directly administers the program in the States which have
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. Grants are
also made for nutritional training and surveys and for State
administrative expenses. Under current legislation, most of
these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates
established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts
actually served by the States.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child
nutrition provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorizes the
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
School Breakfast Program (SBP).--(1) Authorizes a pilot
project to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to
all students without regard to family income; and (2) requires
participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection
conducted by a State or local agency.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Authorizes
payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in
after-school programs. Permanently authorizes and provides
funds for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless
children and family day care homes in low-income areas.
Beginning on July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program
and the Homeless Summer Food Service Program transfer into
CACFP.
National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Significantly
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in
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.
Special Milk Program.--Through the Special Milk Program,
funds are provided to State agencies to reimburse eligible
participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk
consumed. Under Public Law 97-35, participation in the Special
Milk Program is restricted to schools and institutions that do
not participate in another meal service program authorized by
the Child Nutrition or School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1,
1986, based on authority in Public Law 99-661, children in
split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do
not have access to the meal service programs operating in those
schools may participate in the program.
committee provisions
For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a
total of $10,088,746,000, an increase of $547,236,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as
included in the budget request. Of the total amount provided,
$4,748,038,000 is by direct appropriation and $5,340,708,000 is
by transfer from Section 32.
Child Nutrition Programs:
School lunch program................................ $5,759,232,000
School breakfast program............................ 1,579,752,000
Child and adult care food program................... 1,878,179,000
Summer food service program......................... 325,341,000
Special milk program................................ 15,940,000
State administrative expenses....................... 129,929,000
Commodity procurement............................... 372,536,000
School meals initiative............................. 9,991,000
Food safety education............................... 1,998,000
Coordinated review effort........................... 4,507,000
Computer support.................................... 9,341,000
School lunch program integrity...................... 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... $10,088,746,000
``Buy American'' Report.--FNS is directed to provide a
report to the Committee by December 31, 2001, on how the agency
intends to enforce the Buy American provision of the Act that
applies to purchases conducted by schools.
Competitive Foods.--The Committee thanks the Department for
its report on food sold in competition with the school food
service programs. While the Report cites Congressional action
that would strengthen the ability of the Department, the States
and local schools to develop meaningful competitive foods
policies, the Department at this time is not planning to seek
such authority. While the Committee directs the Department to
fully utilize the authority that it has to deal with the
situation, the Committee strongly urges the Department to
promptly review these recommendations for additional authority,
and to request such authority from the authorizing committees
of the House and Senate.
Ohio School Food Service.--The Committee understands that
the Department and State of Ohio authorities continue to work
to develop effective proposals to develop alternative means for
meeting the additional requirements under section 301(c) of the
Federal Meat Inspection Act or section 5(c) of the Poultry
Products Inspection Act. The Committee urges all parties to
continue to work together to resolve this issue as
expeditiously as possible to insure that children continue to
be served nutritious and safe meals.
Nutrition Education.--The nutritional status of our young
people is a matter of public health. The Committee expects the
Department to build upon work already done with the food
pyramid, and other innovative national and local efforts.
Nutrition information should be carefully reviewed so that a
consistent and coordinated message is disseminated. Existing
opportunities to convey nutrition messages, including
newsletters, static displays in cafeterias, in-school and cable
television productions should be used to the maximum extent
possible. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
report regarding the development and implementation of this
effort by February 1, 2002.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(WIC)
2001 appropriation...................................... $4,043,086,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 4,137,086,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 4,137,086,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +94,000,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant,
breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children
up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1999, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through
2003 and added several provisions to the program. The act
requires that an individual seeking certification or
recertification in the program must provide documentation of
family income.
Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.--The act permits State
agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder
offering the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State
agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
the weighted average retail price for different brands of
formula in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is designed to
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC
participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh,
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables,
from farmers' markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
committee provisions
For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an
appropriation of $4,137,086,000, an increase of $94,000,000
above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same
amount as in the budget request.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request estimates
that WIC participation will average 7.25 million during fiscal
2002 and the level of funds recommended supports that
participation level. The WIC program is projected to carry over
more than $100,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002.
Electronic Benefit Transfer.--The Committee recommendation
includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic
benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of
infrastructure funding at $10,000,000, which includes funding
to develop EBT systems.
Farmers' Markets.--The Committee provides new language
regarding the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and activities
relating to senior farmers' market nutrition. The Committee
recommends that up to $25,000,000 be available for the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and up to $15,000,000 for senior
farmers' market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed
to maintain current caseload levels.
Encouraging Healthy Eating Habits.--Because more than half
of WIC participants are children aged one through four, the
Committee believes that encouraging these children to eat fresh
fruits and vegetables through this program is crucial not only
to their health, but also to establishing healthful, nutritious
eating habits for life. This is consistent with both the goals
of the WIC program and the new Dietary Guidelines.
Participation Data.--The Committee is concerned that
participation in the WIC program has been higher in recent
months than had been anticipated. This higher participation
rate raises concerns about the sufficiency of the appropriation
request for FY 2002. WIC Program Directors restrict
participation to the limits provided by this appropriation, and
do not anticipate supplemental appropriations during the course
of the fiscal year. The Committee will monitor and review the
need for additional WIC funding in advance of conference on the
FY 2002 bill.
WIC Food Prescription.--The Committee notes that the WIC
food prescription has changed little since 1974. In 1994, and
again in 1998, USDA solicited comments in a draft policy on
food substitutions to accommodate food preferences and ethnic
cultural eating patterns. However, further action to respond to
these concerns needs to be taken. The Committee urges the
Department to move expeditiously in consultation with WIC
public health nutritionists and directors, to develop for
public comment a food prescription rule responding to the needs
of culturally sensitive populations, and to provide a report to
the Committee regarding the status of the matter prior to the
FY 2003 hearings.
food stamp program
2001 appropriation...................................... $20,119,228,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 21,991,986,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 21,991,986,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +1,872,758,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power.
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible
without food stamp assistance.
Participating households receive free food stamps in
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which
are updated annually.
Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).
By the end of fiscal year 2000, thirty-six systems (Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
Wyoming) and the District of Columbia were Statewide and five
systems (California, Iowa, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin)
were operating EBT in parts of the State. All other States are
in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT systems.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
administrative costs
All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the
Federal Government and the States on a 50-50 basis.
In addition, State agencies which reduce quality control
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, State agencies
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the
program on Indian reservations. The Food Stamp Program is in
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
District of Columbia.
The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on
States which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed
target.
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition
assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs
of its low-income households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987,
funding for this block grant program was included under the
food stamp appropriation account.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides
$21,991,986,000, an increase of $1,872,758,000 above the amount
available in fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the budget
request. The total amount includes $1,000,000,000 for a
contingency reserve in fiscal year 2002; $1,335,550,000 for
nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and $100,000,000 for the
emergency food assistance program.
The Committee recommendation includes up to $7,000,000 for
the purchase of a sufficient amount of food stamp coupons to
supply the remaining needs of recipients until electronic
benefit transfer transition is complete, if the Secretary
certifies that such purchases are necessary.
Commodity Assistance Program
2001 appropriation...................................... $139,991,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 139,991,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 152,813,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +12,822,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +12,822,000
The Commodity Assistance Program provides funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative
expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The CSFP provides
supplemental food to infants and children up to age six, and to
pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low-
incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition,
this program operates commodity distribution projects directed
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized CSFP through
fiscal year 2002. In addition, this law requires CCC to donate
4 million pounds of nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of
cheese to the program annually, subject to availability.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--TEFAP provides
grant funds to State agencies to assist in the cost of storage
and distribution of donated commodities for needy individuals.
Committee Provisions
The Committee provides an appropriation of $152,813,000 for
the commodity assistance program, an increase of $12,822,000
above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and $12,822,000
above the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not
include the rescission of $5,300,000 proposed for CSFP in the
budget request.
The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration
of the emergency food assistance program, an increase of
$5,000,000 over the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and
$5,000,000 over the budget request. These funds may be used for
administration purposes or for food costs at the discretion of
the states.
The Committee has included language providing $21,820,000
for administrative expenses for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program.
The Committee provides new language regarding activities
relating to senior farmers' market nutrition. The Committee
recommends that up to $15,000,000 be available for senior
farmers' market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed
to maintain current caseload levels.
Addition of States to CSFP.--The Committee has provided
funds to support the addition of five additional states to the
CSFP.
Food Distribution and Preservation.--The Committee believes
that there is an abundant and affordable supply of surplus
foods, but the lack of distribution and transportation capacity
can limit the program's effectiveness. The Committee urges the
Department to support programs that can expand food
distribution, particularly for those organizations that serve
large regions. In addition, the Committee is aware that
perishable produce may be stabilized through flash freezing.
The Department is encouraged to work with and support community
service organizations to explore this option.
food donations programs
2001 appropriation...................................... $150,751,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 150,749,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 150,749,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. -2,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--The Nutrition Program
for the Elderly (NPE) provides cash and commodities to States
for distribution to local organizations that prepare meals
served to elderly persons in congregate settings or delivered
to their homes. The program promotes good health through
nutrition assistance by reducing the isolation experienced by
the elderly. This program is a supplement to the Department of
Health and Human Services' (DHHS) funding for programs for the
elderly with cash commodities on a per meal basis for each meal
served to an elderly person.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides for a
directly funded food distribution program for low-income
individuals in the nuclear-affected islands. This program
attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in low-income
households by providing nutritious agricultural commodities to
eligible persons. It also provides funding for use in non-
presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with disaster relief.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an
appropriation of $150,749,000, a decrease of $2,000 from the
amount available for fiscal year 2001, and the same amount as
the budget request. Included in this amount is $149,668,000 for
the nutrition program for the elderly.
food program administration
2001 appropriation......................................\1\ $116,550,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... \2\ 125,546,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 126,656,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +10,106,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +1,110,000
\1\ Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of
$1,000,000 (P.L. 106-387) for studies and evaluations.
\2\ Does not reflect $1,996,000 transferred to the Congressional Hunger
Center Foundation provided by P.L. 106-387.
The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs;
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC); the Commodity Assistance Program, including the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, administrative expenses of
The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program; the Food Donations Programs, including the
Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Pacific Island Assistance
and Disaster Feeding; the Food Stamp Program and the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
The major objective of food program administration is to
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support
functions.
Committee Provisions
For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided
$126,656,000, an increase of $10,106,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $1,110,000
above the budget request.
The recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 for
research, evaluation, and assessment activities and $1,800,000
to improve FNS information technology.
Dietary Guidelines.--The Committee encourages the Center
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion to conduct ongoing research
on modifications to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000
to revise the food guide pyramid and related educational
materials as needed.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, FAS
2001 appropriation............................................ $115,170,000 ($4,257,000) ($119,427,000)
2002 budget estimate.......................................... 121,563,000 (4,257,000) (125,820,000)
Provided in the bill.......................................... 122,631,000 (4,257,000) (126,888,000)
Comparison:
2001 appropriation........................................ +7,461,000 .............. (+7,461,000)
2002 budget estimate...................................... +1,068,000 .............. (+1,068,000)
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, Supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The primary function of this organization is to help
American agriculture in maintaining and expanding foreign
markets for agriculture products vital to the economic well-
being of the nation. It maintains a worldwide agricultural
intelligence and reporting service to assist the U.S.
agricultural industry in its export operations through a
continuous program of analyzing and reporting foreign
agricultural production, markets, and policies. It attempts to
develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products through
administration of special export programs and through helping
to secure international trade conditions that are favorable
toward American products. FAS is also responsible for
coordinating, planning, and directing the Department's programs
in international development and technical cooperation in food
and agriculture formerly carried out by the Office of
International Cooperation and Development.
committee provisions
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $122,631,000 and transfers of
$4,257,000, for a total program level of $126,888,000, an
increase of $7,461,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 2001 and an increase of $1,068,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee has included an additional $250,000 to
continue efforts begun in fiscal year 2001 to increase FAS
presence in Ukraine.
Azores.--The Committee urges the Department to devote
necessary resources to establish the Azores Collaborative
Research and Education Group to assist the U.S. Government in
meeting its treaty obligations to the government of Portugal.
Currency fluctuations.--The Committee provides bill
language permitting the Department to maintain up to $2,000,000
solely for the purpose of offsetting international currency
fluctuations.
U.S. commodities.--The Committee continues to believe that
commodity assistance, including monetization, is a vital tool
to help alleviate the needs of recipients, and a prudent way to
help move commodities that are in surplus and urgently needed.
In any review of international commodity assistance, including
section 416, the Committee expects that its prior directives on
the matter be given full consideration. Further, while any
change in Executive Administration will routinely delay
decisions ordinarily made in the normal course of business, the
Committee remains concerned that decisions with respect to
commodity assistance are being made too late in the year to be
of maximum value. The Committee directs the Department to
develop a system for making these decisions no later than
February 15 of each year, and to report to the Committee on the
steps taken to implement this system.
Rice.--The Committee includes language that the Secretary
of Agriculture shall use currently available authorities to
ensure that all forms of rice (rough, brown and milled) are
fairly represented in all Department of Agriculture food aid,
export market development, export promotion and other export
related programs.
Quality samples program.--The Committee expects that the
Quality Samples Program (QSP) administered by the Foreign
Agricultural Service will be continued to help develop new
markets and expand existing markets for United States
agricultural products. Funds made available through CCC to
carry out activities under the QSP shall be no less than
$2,500,000, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends bill language which states that
none of the funds appropriated in this account may be used to
pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to disburse funds to
any rice trade association under the market access program or
the foreign market development program at any time when the
applicable international activity agreement for such program is
not in effect.
Public Law 480
program and grant accounts
public law 480 title I program account
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 2001 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S.
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period
of up to 5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and
supporting agricultural development and research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in
their agricultural economies.
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480
programs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
Title I--Credit sales:
Direct loans...................................... ($159,327,000) ($139,399,000) ($150,000,000)
Ocean freight differential........................ 20,277,000 20,277,000 20,277,000
Loan subsidies.................................... 113,935,000 113,935,000 122,600,000
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level..................................... (835,159,000) (835,159,000) (835,159,000)
Appropriation..................................... 835,159,000 835,159,000 835,159,000
Title III--Commodity grants:
Program level..................................... (0) (0) (0)
Appropriation..................................... 0 0 0
Salaries and expenses:
General Sales Manager............................. 1,033,000 1,033,000 1,033,000
-----------------------------------------------------
FSA............................................... 813,000 972,000 980,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 1,846,000 2,005,000 2,013,000
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level............................... (835,159,000) (835,159,000) (835,159,000)
Appropriation............................... 971,217,000 971,376,000 980,049,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of rural electrification as part of U.S. foreign
assistance efforts. A direct linkage can be made between rural
electrification and improved agriculture production, lower
birth rates, microenterprise development, and better medical
care. The committee is pleased with the track record and
success of rural electrification programs based on the electric
cooperative model and encourages the Department to consider
proposals submitted by the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association and other organizations through the Food for
Progress and related programs to advance rural electrification
projects in developing nations.
Funds interchange.--The Committee has included bill
language providing that funds made available for the cost of
title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential
may be used interchangeably.
CCC Export Loans Program Account
administrative expenses
2001 appropriation.................................... $3,812,000
2002 budget estimate.................................. 4,014,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 4,021,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation................................ +209,000
2002 budget estimate.............................. +7,000
Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years.
The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-term credit with
repayment terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978, as amended, requires that not less than $5.5
billion be made available annually from 1996 through 2002 for
GSM-102 and GSM-103. The FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the
Emerging Markets Export Credit Program.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan
guarantees committed in 2001 and beyond, as well as for
administrative expenses.
Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is
provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not
by annual appropriation.
committee provisions
For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $4,021,000, an increase of
$209,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $7,000 above the budget request.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
Prescription
Appropriation drug user fee Total, FDA, S&E
2001 appropriation...................................... \1\ \2\ $1,066,173 $149,273,000 $1,215,446,000
,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... \3\ 1,173,673,000 161,716,000 1,335,389,000
Provided in the bill.................................... \3\ 1,180,623,000 161,716,000 1,342,339,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +114,450,000 +12,443,000 +126,893,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +6,950,000 ................ +6,950,000
\1\ Reflects $2,470,000 rescission.
\2\ This amount does not include $22,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.
\3\ This amount does not include $2,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal
consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The
agency's mission and sole objective is to protect and promote
the public health through its science-based core activities of
premarket review and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction
over a wide variety of products that affect every person, every
day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics
including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological
products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe
and effective, as well as properly labeled.
FDA works extensively with stakeholders--industry,
consumers, and other interested parties--to: (1) set food and
product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new
drugs and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct
and sponsor research studies to detect health hazards and
violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency's
base of scientific knowledge to allow for better regulatory
decision-making; (4) inform business firms and consumers about
FDA-related topics; (5) work with state and local agencies to
develop programs that will supplement or complement those of
FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods, drugs, medical
devices and electronic products to ensure that they are safe,
effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action when
necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace and
to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.
FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to
meet statutory requirements and its mission: research and
development-fueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities;
greater product complexity driven by breakthroughs in
technology; growth in the recognized adverse effects associated
with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats;
continued cooperative activities needed in the international
arena; and the increased volume and diversity of imports.
committee provisions
For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee
provides a total direct appropriation of $1,180,623,000 for
salaries and expenses and makes available an additional
$161,716,000 in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act, for a total of $1,342,339,000. This is an increase of
$126,893,000 above the total amount available in fiscal year
2001 and an increase of $6,950,000 above the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends $2,950,000 be
available to the agency solely for activities relating to the
Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 (Section 745 of
P.L. 106-387), subject to the requirements of that Act.
Bioengineered Foods.--On January 18, 2001, FDA issued a
draft guidance on the voluntary labeling of foods indicating
whether they have or have not been developed using
bioengineering. The Committee directs that no final guidance
may be issued without 15-day advance notice to the Committee.
Breast Implants.--The Committee is concerned about a recent
FDA study revealing alarmingly high rupture rates in silicone
breast implants and the agency's decision to approve saline
breast implants in spite of high complication and failure
rates--particularly among mastectomy patients. The Committee
advises the agency to carefully monitor breast implant
manufacturers' patient brochures, informed consent documents,
and package inserts to ensure they reflect accurate information
about such implants, and to work with manufacturers to ensure
women receive full and accurate information before enrolling in
any study or undergoing surgery.
Dietary Supplement Adverse Event Reports.--The July 1999
General Accounting Office report (GGD-99-90) on dietary
supplements found that the Adverse Event Report system used by
the FDA needs to be improved. Furthermore, the GAO made
specific recommendations to the FDA on what action should be
taken to address this situation. More recently, in April 2001,
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of
Health and Human Services made further recommendations for
enhancing the quality and capability of the FDA's AER system
for dietary supplements. The Committee is concerned that the
FDA has not taken proper steps to address the concerns outlined
in the GAO and OIG reports. Therefore, the Committee directs
the FDA to follow the recommendations made by these reports as
a part of the agency's overall plan to consolidate and improve
the AER system.
Food Allergens.--Seven million Americans suffer from food
allergies, and about 150 Americans die each year due to the
ingestion of allergenic foods. Most children who have food
allergies have their first exposure to allergens in their
homes. A 2000 survey conducted jointly by the Food and Drug
Administration, Minnesota, and Wisconsin found that one-quarter
of the bakery products, candy, and ice cream sampled were
contaminated with peanut or egg ingredients that were not
declared on the product labels. The Committee is aware that FDA
has recently issued guidance on the most common food allergies.
However, the Committee is also aware of a petition filed in May
2000 by the Attorneys General of nine states requesting that
the FDA amend its regulations to require the disclosure of
allergens on food packages. The Committee encourages FDA to
promulgate regulations to prevent cross-contamination of foods
by undeclared allergens and requests a report from the agency
by December 31, 2001 on its plans to do so.
Food Safety.--To enhance food safety, the Committee
supports the expedited review of food additive petitions that
are designed to decrease the risk of foodborne illness. FDA has
implemented an expedited review process for such petitions. The
Committee notes that despite this effort, unacceptable delays
persist regarding actions that would permit the expanded use of
pathogen-reducing technologies. The Committee directs FDA to
explore additional activities that would permit the expanded
use of pathogen-reducing technologies, particularly including
more timely review, food additive petition process enhancements
such as premarket consultations for petitions for new uses of
irradiation, and developing irradiation labeling that is better
understood by the general public.
Generic Drug Application Review.--It is the view of the
Committee that ensuring timely access to affordable generic
medicines is an important part of efforts to address the rising
cost of prescription drugs. Review times for applications of
generic drugs continue to exceed statutory limits, thus
depriving patients and health care providers of significant
savings. The Committee provides an increase above the budget
request of $1,500,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to hire
reviewers and otherwise assist in accelerating generic drug
reviews.
Generic Drug Education.--It is the view of the Committee
that ensuring timely access to affordable generic medicines is
an important part of efforts to address the rising cost of
prescription drugs. The Committee provides an increase of
$250,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to further work begun
this year to develop and implement an education program on the
use and therapeutic equivalency of generic pharmaceuticals.
Import Inspections.--The Committee remains concerned that
the FDA physically inspects less than one percent of products
imported into our country. The Committee is also concerned
about the increasing and tremendous strain on inspection
resources brought about by the flood of new imports coming into
this country as a result of free trade agreements. The
Committee encourages the FDA to consider the import program a
priority in the agency's risk-based inspection system.
Labeling of Irradiated Foods.--FDA is in the process of
developing a proposed rule related to the current labeling
requirements for foods that are treated with ionizing
radiation. The Committee understands that FDA regulations
currently permit labeling that explains why the food is being
irradiated, as long as the labeling is truthful and not
misleading. The Committee believes that any required disclosure
should not be perceived as a warning or give rise to
inappropriate consumer anxiety. The Committee believes the FDA
should consider as part of its rulemaking process a proposal to
include only those labeling alternatives that are easily
understood by the general public.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is
concerned about the impact that delays in device application
review have on Americans' health. The Committee has provided
the full level of requested funding for device application
review and expects that significant gains in performance will
result. The Committee directs that FDA provide updates of its
medical device review performance, as compared to statutory
requirements for application decisions, with reports to the
Committee in January and July 2002.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The
Committee is interested in the function and administration of
the National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), a
collaborative effort among the FDA, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and directs the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to describe the administration of the
program in a report to the Committee by March 1, 2002. The
report to the Committee should contain a detailed breakout of
all FDA funds allocated to NARMS in fiscal year 2001, including
a list of FDA activities, and grants and funded interagency
agreements to other agencies and academic institutions. In
addition, include in the report any overhead cost factors used,
and note any services or data provided by FDA to other federal
agencies, states, or countries without charge to them.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--Within the
amounts provided for food safety, the Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for the National Center for Food Safety and
Technology in Summit-Argo, Illinois, to continue collaborative
research in food safety among government, academia, and private
industry.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee is concerned that
insufficient attention has been paid to gender-based research
by the FDA. Since the Office of Women's Health was established
in 1994, its budget and its functions have been stagnant in
spite of greatly increased needs. Last year, GAO reported a
serious disproportionate impact on women of drugs withdrawn
from the market for safety reasons. To address this issue, the
Committee directs that FDA develop an agency-wide database
focused on women's health activities, and that FDA commence a
capability assessment for each Center and the Office of the
Commissioner to review currently available critical clinical
trail databases, coordinate data collection and identify areas
in which data gaps exist. The Committee directs FDA to provide
an additional $700,000 to the Office of Women's Health for this
effort, from within sums provided for all programs, and to
provide the Committee with the capability assessment report and
detailed plans for the database by January 31, 2002.
Restrictions on Commercial Speech.--FDA is to report to the
Committee by July 1, 2002, regarding actions it has taken or
plans to take to address any significant and recent questions
raised about whether an FDA rule or policy violates the First
Amendment.
Secondary Wholesale Pharmaceutical Industry.--The Committee
supports the recent FDA action to delay the effective date for
implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug
Marketing Act until April 1, 2002. The Committee is concerned
about the potential impact of the proposed revisions on the
secondary wholesale pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, the
Committee is concerned that the rule in its current form may
disproportionately favor a few large distributors at the
expense of consumers and genuine competition in the
marketplace. The Committee urges the FDA to revise the rule to
address the Committee's concerns.
Shellfish Safety.--The Committee expects that FDA will
continue its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Commission (ISSC) to promote educational and research
activities related to shellfish safety in general, and Vibrio
vulnificus in particular. The Committee directs the use of
$250,000 for this effort from within sums provided for food
safety. In addition, the Committee understands that FDA's
Office of Seafood has a memorandum of understanding with ISSC
to work on assuring the safety and quality of shellfish,
including regulation development when needed. The Committee
directs that FDA continue this work with the ISSC, and that FDA
continue to devote not less than $200,000 to these efforts.
Shellfish Safety Goals.--While the Committee supports the
efforts by the Food and Drug Administration in reducing the
rate of illness due to Vibrio vulnificus, it is concerned about
the achievability of the illness rate reduction goals and the
severity of consequences for failure in reaching those goals
being proposed by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (ISSC). The Committee encourages FDA and the ISSC to
work with the state regulatory authorities and industry to
ensure that the impact to the affected states is understood and
mitigated as these reduction goals are developed, consistent
with latest scientific information available. Furthermore, the
Committee supports the continued emphasis on education of at-
risk individuals and their medical caretakers.
White Oak, Maryland, Relocation.--The Committee recommends
language, as requested, that extends the availability of
$6,000,000 until September 30, 2003, for costs related to
occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland.
Recommendations by activity.--The Committee recommends that
of the total amount provided: (1) $307,552,000 shall be for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2)
$349,397,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $155,375,000 shall be for the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $81,467,000
shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5)
$179,521,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health and for related field activities in the
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $37,082,000 shall be for the
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR); (7)
$31,798,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, other
than the amounts paid to the General Services Administration;
(8) $105,116,000 shall be for payments to the General Services
Administration for rent and related costs; and (9) $95,031,000
shall be for other activities, including the Office of the
Commissioner, the Office of Senior Associate Commissioner, the
Office of International and Constituent Relations, the Office
of Policy, Planning, and Legislation, the Office of Management
and Systems, and central services for these offices. Funds may
be transferred from one specified activity to another with the
prior approval of the Committee.
buildings and facilities
2001 appropriation...................................... $31,281,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 34,281,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 34,281,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +3,000,000
2002 budget estimate................................................
The Buildings and Facilities account was established for
repair and improvement of existing facilities, as well as for
construction of new facilities when needed.
committee provisions
For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$34,281,000, an increase of $3,000,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the
budget request.
The Committee recommends $8,281,000 for repairs and
improvements to existing facilities, and $3,000,000 for
continuing construction of phase III at the Arkansas Regional
Laboratory. The Committee supports replacement of the Los
Angeles laboratory, and provides an appropriation of
$23,000,000 for the second and final phase of laboratory
construction.
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
2001 appropriation...................................... $67,850,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... 70,400,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 70,700,000
Comparison:
2001 appropriation.................................. +2,850,000
2002 budget estimate................................ +300,000
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers
the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of
the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures
and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring
their integrity, and protecting participants and the public
against manipulation, fraud, and abusive trade practices. The
objective is to enable the markets to better serve their
designated function in providing a price discovery mechanism
and as a means of offsetting price risk. In properly serving
these functions, the futures markets contribute toward better
planning, more efficient distribution and consumption, and more
economical marketing.
committee provisions
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $70,700,000, an increase of
$2,850,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
an increase of $300,000 above the budget request.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
2001 limitation....................................... ($36,719,000)
2002 budget estimate.................................. (36,700,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (36,700,000)
Comparison:
2001 limitation................................... (-19,000)
2002 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by
Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to
the Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by
Reorganization Plan No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23,
1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the
direction of a Federal Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The
Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-205) clarified the
FCA's role as an arm's-length financial regulator, granting it
the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal
financial regulatory agencies. The Act also replaced the
Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-
time Board members with the FCA Board, comprised of a Chairman
and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time
capacity. Not more than two members of the Board shall be
members of the same political party.
The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and
examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System).
The FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority
of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2002 et seq.). The
institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks,
production credit associations, Federal land credit
associations, agricultural credit associations, and one
Agricultural Credit Bank. The combined lending activities in
the System institutions provided short- and long-term credit to
the nation's farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of
aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions
are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of the
System is funded through the sale of systemwide consolidated
bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the
institutions are fully liable for the payment of these
securities. The operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the
System institutions and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a
special fund in the Treasury which is available for the use of
the FCA.
Committee Provisions
For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit
Administration, the Committee provides $36,700,000, a decrease
of $19,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and
the same amount as the budget request.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill
for fiscal year 2002 are fundamentally the same as those
included in last year's appropriations bill.
Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds from
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural
America.
Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds from
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture
and Food Systems.
Section 724: Language is included that prohibits funds from
being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.
Section 725: Language is included that prohibits funds from
being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that
assumes reductions from the previous year's budget due to user
fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending
reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
Section 726: Language is included that provides that no
funds shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations,
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in
preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was
adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
Section 727: Language is included that provides that no
funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
Section 728: Language is included that provides $4,000,000
for a hunger fellowship program.
Section 729: Language is included that provides that,
hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis
from a credit card services provider under the Department of
Agriculture's charge card programs may be deposited to and
retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental
Working Capital fund, and may be used to fund management
initiatives of general benefit to the Department as determined
by the Secretary.
Section 730: Language is included that provides that any
balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any
recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be
used to carry out Title II of such Act. Funds were last
appropriated for Title III programming in FY 1999. However,
there are Title III balances remaining of less than $500,000.
This provision allows remaining Title III account balances to
be used for Title II programming since no new Title III
programming is anticipated. This provision will allow the use
of remaining Title III balances for Title II even though
Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the
funds available for Title III may be used to carry out Title
II.
Section 731: Language is included that amends Section
375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center
revolving fund.
Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to promulgate a
proposed rule, or to otherwise change or modify the definition
of ``animal'' in existing regulations pursuant to the Animal
Welfare Act.
Section 733: Language is included that provides that the
City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, California,
shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the
Rural Community Advancement Program.
Section 734: Language is included that provides that the
City of Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered as meeting
the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of the Housing
Act of 1949.
Section 735: Language is included that makes the City of
St. Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans
administered by the rural development mission areas of the
Department of Agriculture.
Section 736: Language is included that makes the City of
Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs in the
rural development mission areas of the Department of
Agriculture.
Section 737: Language is included stating that none of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may
be used to maintain, modify, or implement any assessment
against agricultural producers as part of a commodity
promotion, research, and consumer information order, known as a
check-off program, that has not been approved by the affected
producers in accordance with the statutory requirements
applicable to the order.
Section 738: Language is included that prohibits funds to
close or relocate certain Food and Drug Administration offices
in St. Louis, Missouri
Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds to reduce staff levels at certain Food and Drug
Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.
Section 740: Language is included that provides emergency
funds for market loss payments for apple producers.
Transfer of Unexpended Balances
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations
by clause 1(b)(3) of rule X.
1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental
payments account based on changing space requirements.
2. Hazardous Materials Management.--The bill allows the
funds appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials
management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as
required.
3. Departmental Administration.--The bill requires
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.--The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated
to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to
agencies.
5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
6. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
7. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
8. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by
reference.
9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm
Service Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds
may be transferred among lending programs.
10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.--The bill
provides that prior year balances from certain accounts shall
be transferred to and merged with this account.
11. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural
Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Electrification
and Telecommunications Loans program account; and Rural
Telephone Bank program account.--The bill provides that
administrative funds shall be transferred to the Rural
Development Salaries and Expenses Account.
12. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
13. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC).--The bill permits the use of funds
for other programs under certain conditions.
14. Commodity Assistance Program.--The bill permits the use
of funds for another activity under certain conditions.
15. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
16. Public Law 480.--The bill provides that funds made
available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I
ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably.
17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses
associated with credit reform.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law. In most instances, these
provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills,
often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of
the responsible legislative committees.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to
date has not been enacted.
Language is included in the bill in several accounts that
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1994.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law:
1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit
the amount of funds for official reception and representation
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments.--Language is included that allows for the
reconfiguration and release of space back into the General
Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space
rental cost for space not needed for USDA programs. Language is
included which allows the transfer of limited amounts to and
from this account to cover new or increased costs until those
costs can be included in subsequent budget requests to the
Congress.
3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the
holding of hearings.
4. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out
research related to the production, processing or marketing of
tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included that allows
the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the
Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is
included that authorizes the Agricultural Research Service to
charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special
use authorization for the occupancy or use of land and
facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be credited
to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until
expended.
5. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from
being used to carry out research related to the production,
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses
incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services
to non-APHIS personnel.
7. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
This allows for flexibility if export activities require
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable
factors occur.
8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS
activity related to preparation of standards.
9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur.
10. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included by
reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of
the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making
dairy indemnity payments.
11. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
12. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit
the amount of funds for official reception and representation
expenses.
13. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by
states and counties is authorized by basic law.
14. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language,
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983
(P.L. 98-8) and all bills since 1984, provides that funds may
be used for rehabilitation of existing works.
15. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered
into during the current fiscal year be funded for a five-year
period.
16. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan
program account.--Language is included to allow borrowers'
interest rates for loans to exceed seven percent.
17. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations,
except for $2,000,000 to be used in a study of integrity
methods and practices in the National School Lunch Program.
18. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to allow
the use of funds for the farmers' market nutrition program, and
for senior farmers' market activities.
19. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to
permit printing of food coupons under certain conditions.
20. Commodity Assistance Program.--Language is included
that allows a specific funding level for Commodity Supplemental
Food Program administrative expenses and to allow the use of
funds for senior farmers' market activities.
21. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities
involving international development and technical cooperation.
Language is included that prohibits disbursement of funds to
any rice trade association under the market access program or
the foreign market development program at any time when the
applicable international activity agreement for such program is
not in effect. Language is included that prohibits funds from
being used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for
official reception and representation expenses.
22. Food and Drug Administration.--Language is included
that extends the availability of $6,000,000 for costs related
to occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland, until
September 30, 2003. Language is included that provides that
$2,950,000 is available solely for carrying out the Medicine
Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000, subject to the requirements
of that Act.
23. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is
included to limit the amount of fund for official reception and
representation expenses.
24. General Provisions.--
Section 704: This provision permits the Secretary to
transfer funds made available by this Act, as well as
other available unobligated balances of the Department
of Agriculture, to the Working Capital fund for the
acquisition of plant and capital equipment, and
provides that no funds appropriated to an agency shall
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the
approval of the agency administrator.
Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is
again included which provides that certain
appropriations in this Act shall remain available until
expended where the programs or projects involved are
continuing in nature under the provisions of
authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation
does not specifically provide for extended
availability. This authority tends to result in savings
by preventing the wasteful practice often found in
government of rushing to commit funds at the end of the
fiscal year without due regard to the value of the
purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended
availability is also essential in view of the long lead
time frequently required to negotiate agreements or
contracts which normally extend over a period of more
than one year. Under these conditions such authority is
commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted
from basic law. These provisions have been carried
through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient
and effective program execution and to assure maximum
savings. They involve the following items: Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund
to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the
integrated systems acquisition project, the boll weevil
program, up to 25 percent of the screwworm program, and
up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating
regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service,
field automation and information management project;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service, funds for competitive research grants, funds
for the Research, Education, and Economics Information
System (REEIS), and funds for the Native American
Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency,
salaries and expenses to county committees; Foreign
Agricultural Service, middle-income country training
program and up to $2,000,000 for foreign currency
fluctuations.
Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal
year 1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on
cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This
provision is necessary because many universities
attempted to apply the same overhead rates to
cooperative agreements as was being applied to grants
and contracts, without giving consideration to the
cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead
charges.
Section 709: This provision, added in 1987, provides
that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This
provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a
lower cost than space leased by GSA.
Section 710: This provision provides that none of the
funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect
costs charged against agricultural research, education,
or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of
19 percent of total direct costs, except for grants
available under the Small Business Innovation and
Development Act.
Section 711: This provision clarifies that loan
levels provided in the Act are to be considered
estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated
subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of
loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest
rates change, the amount of loan authority will
fluctuate.
Section 712: This provision allows funds made
available in the current fiscal year for the Rural
Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Telephone
Bank program account; the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans program account; the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund program account; and the Rural
Economic Development Loans program account to remain
available until expended. The Credit Reform Act
requires that the lifetime costs of loans be
appropriated. Current law requires that funds
unobligated after five years expire. The life of some
loans extends well beyond the five-year period and this
provision allows funds appropriated to remain available
until the loans are closed out.
Section 713: This provision provides that marketing
services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; and the food safety activities of the Food
Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative
agreements.
Section 714: This provision provides that the Natural
Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative
agreements.
Section 715: Provides that not more than 5 percent of
the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be
retired in fiscal year 2002. The provision also
prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount
which has not been specifically authorized by law. The
provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated
funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating
account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank
that are in excess of current requirements.
Section 716: Provides that of the funds made
available, not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to
cover expenses of activities related to all advisory
committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the
Department of Agriculture except for panels used to
comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to
evaluate competitively awarded grants.
Section 717: Provides that none of the funds may be
used to carry out certain provisions of meat and
poultry inspection acts.
Section 718: This provision prohibits any employee of
the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or
assigned to any other agency or office of the
Department for more than 30 days unless the
individual's employing agency or office is fully
reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the
salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department
of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to
any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Section 720: Language is included that requires
approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board for acquisition of new
information technology systems or significant upgrades,
and that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office
of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress.
Section 721: Language is included that requires
certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in
Appropriations Acts.
Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds
from being used to carry out programs under the Fund
for Rural America.
Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds
from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 724: Language is included that prohibits
funds from being used to carry out the Conservation
Farm Option program.
Section 725: Language is included that prohibits
funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to
Congress that assumes reductions from the previous
year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the
submission also identifies spending reductions which
should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
Section 726: Language is included that provides that
no funds shall be used to propose or issue rules,
regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of
implementation, or in preparation for implementation,
of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11,
1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
Section 727: Language is included that provides that
no funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness
and enhancement of program delivery have been
determined.
Section 728: Language is included that provides
$4,000,000 for a hunger fellowship program.
Section 729: Language is included that provides that,
hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-going
basis from a credit card services provider under the
Department of Agriculture's charge card programs may be
deposited to and retained without fiscal year
limitation in the Departmental Working Capital fund,
and may be used to fund management initiatives of
general benefit to the Department as determined by the
Secretary.
Section 730: Language is included that provides that
any balances available to carry out Title III of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become
available, may be used to carry out Title II of such
Act. Funds were last appropriated for Title III
programming in FY 1999. However, there are Title III
balances remaining of less than $500,000. This
provision allows remaining Title III account balances
to be used for Title II programming since no new Title
III programming is anticipated. This provision will
allow the use of remaining Title III balances for Title
II even though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that
only 50 percent of the funds available for Title III
may be used to carry out Title II.
Section 731: Language is included that amends Section
375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act regarding the National Sheep Industry
Improvement Center revolving fund.
Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the
use of funds to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking,
to promulgate a proposed rule, or to otherwise change
or modify the definition of ``animal'' in existing
regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act.
Section 733: Language is included that provides that
the City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella,
California, shall be eligible for loans and grants
provided through the Rural Community Advancement
Program.
Section 734: Language is included that provides that
the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered
as meeting the requirements of a rural area in section
520 of the Housing Act of 1949.
Section 735: Language is included that makes the City
of St. Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans
administered by the rural development mission areas of
the Department of Agriculture.
Section 736: Language is included that makes the City
of Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs
in the rural development mission areas of the
Department of Agriculture.
Section 737: Language is included stating that none
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to maintain, modify, or
implement any assessment against agricultural producers
as part of a commodity promotion, research, and
consumer information order, known as a check-off
program, that has not been approved by the affected
producers in accordance with the statutory requirements
applicable to the order.
Section 738: Language is included that prohibits
funds to close or relocate certain Food and Drug
Administration offices in St. Louis, Missouri.
Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the
use of funds to reduce staff levels at certain Food and
Drug Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.
Section 740: Language is included that provides
emergency funds for market loss payments for apple
producers.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Revolving Fund.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Funding.--
(A) * * *
(B) Mandatory funds.--Out of any moneys in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to the
Center not to exceed [$25,000,000] $26,000,000
to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
Appropriations Not Authorized By Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
in last year Appropriations
Program and last year of authorization Authorization level of in this bill
authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following programs are not currently
authorized by law:
USDA:
Dairy Indemnity Program:
FY 1995............................... Such sums as necessary.......... 0 $100
Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger
Fellowships:
(\1\)................................. (\1\)........................... (\1\) 4,000
The following programs are funded in this bill
at levels that exceed those currently
authorized by law:
USDA:
Farm Service Agency:
Direct Farm Loans:
Ownership......................... $85,000......................... NA 128,000
Operating......................... 500,000......................... NA 600,000
Guaranteed Farm Loans:
Ownership......................... 750,000......................... NA 1,000,000
Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service:
Native American Institutions Endowment 4,600........................... NA 7,100
Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This program has never been authorized. It was initially funded in FY 2000 at $2 million.
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following information is
submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the
accompanying bill:
The bill proposes rescission of $45,000,000 to eliminate
the remaining unobligated balance in the Agricultural
Conservation Program. This program was terminated at the
beginning of 1997 in accordance with the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
The bill proposes rescission of $3,616,000 of funds derived
from interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year
2002 under the Rural Economic Development Loans Program
Account, which is an annual technical adjustment contained in
the budget estimates.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
-----------------------------------------------
Full committee data Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
Discretionary............................................... $15,519 $15,831 $15,669 $15,974
Mandatory................................................... 43,112 33,847 43,112 33,847
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 58,631 49,678 58,781 49,821
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation.
However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding in the reported bill for spending designated
as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will
provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new
allocation will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill:
[Five year projections, in millions of dollars]
Budget Authority...................................... $58,781
Outlays:
2002.............................................. 41,471
2003.............................................. 6,556
2004.............................................. 736
2005.............................................. 362
2006 and beyond................................... 539
The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays,
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available
under existing law for fiscal year 2002 and beyond.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
state and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.................................. $19,560
Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom.......... 16,134
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2002, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), the following information provides the definition of
the term ``program, project, and activity'' for departments and
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall
include the most specific level of budget items identified in
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
2002, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2002 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in
the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal
year 2002 budget estimates, as amended, for such departments
and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in
addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual state, district, and county offices.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
ROLLCALL NO. 1
Date: June 13, 2001.
Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY
2002.
Motion by: Mr. Cunningham.
Description of motion: To strike bill language providing
for a $500,000 study on the effects of irradiated food, to
strike report language asking the FDA to consider only labeling
that is easily understood by the public, and to insert report
language that any irradiated food labeling requirement should
not be perceived as a warning.
Results: Adopted 31 yeas to 25 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt Mr. Boyd
Mr. Bonilla Mr. Clyburn
Mr. Cramer Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Cunningham Mr. Dicks
Mr. Doolittle Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Farr
Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Goode
Ms. Granger Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Istook Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Kingston Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Knollenberg Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. LaHood Mrs. Meek
Mr. Latham Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Lewis Mr. Obey
Mr. Murtha Mr. Olver
Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Pastor
Mrs. Northup Mr. Price
Mr. Peterson Mr. Rothman
Mr. Regula Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Rogers Mr. Sabo
Mr. Skeen Mr. Serrano
Mr. Sununu Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Taylor Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
ROLLCALL NO. 2
Date: June 13, 2001.
Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY
2002.
Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
Description of motion: To provide $500,000,000 in
contingent emergency appropriations for the establishment of a
biofuels program.
Results: Rejected 18 yeas to 31 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Doolittle
Ms. Kaptur Mrs. Emerson
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Meek Mr. Goode
Mr. Mollohan Ms. Granger
Mr. Obey Mr. Hobson
Mr. Olver Mr. Istook
Mr. Pastor Mr. Kingston
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Price Mr. LaHood
Mr. Rothman Mr. Latham
Mr. Sabo Mr. Lewis
Mr. Serrano Mr. Miller
Mr. Nethercutt
Mrs. Northup
Mr. Peterson
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall No. 3
Date: June 13, 2001.
Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY
2002.
Motion by: Ms. DeLauro.
Description of motion: To provide $50,000,000 in contingent
emergency appropriations for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service and $163,000,000 in contingent emergency appropriations
for the Food and Drug Administration for food safety
activities.
Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 29 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham Mr. Doolittle
Ms. DeLauro Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Dicks Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr Ms. Granger
Mr. Fattah Mr. Istook
Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kaptur Mr. LaHood
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Latham
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Meek Mr. Miller
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor Mr. Regula
Mr. Price Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rothman Mr. Sherwood
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen
Mr. Serrano Mr. Sununu
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall No. 4
Date: June 13, 2001.
Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY
2002.
Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
Description of motion: To require continuation of the
Global Food for Education Initiative at the fiscal year 2001
level, with directed scorekeeping.
Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 32 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards Mr. DooLittle
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr Mr. Goode
Mr. Fattah Mr. Granger
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood
Mrs. Meek Mr. Latham
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey Mr. Miller
Mr. Pastor Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Mr. Rothman Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Skeen
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Sununu
Mr. Wicker Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall No. 5
Date: June 13, 2001.
Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY
2002.
Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
Description of motion: To provide contingent emergency
appropriations of $150,000,000 in Commodity Credit Corporation
funds for market loss assistance for apple producers.
Results: Adopted 34 yeas to 24 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Hobson
Mr. Farr Mr. Istook
Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Kingston
Mr. Goode Mr. LaHood
Ms. Granger Mr. Latham
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Lewis
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Miller
Mr. Jackson Mrs. Northup
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Regula
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Rogers
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Skeen
Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Sununu
Mrs. Meek Mr. Taylor
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Vitter
Mr. Obey Mr. Wamp
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Wicker
Mr. Peterson Mr. Young
Mr. Price
Mr. Rothman
Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Sabo
Mr. Serrano
Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wolf
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
overview
We believe that the Committee has produced a reasonable
bill, given the resources available to it.
We do have serious concerns about four important issues--
food safety, the Global Food for Education Initiative, the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) program and biofuels.
We regret that the Committee bill does not adequately
address what we believe are important needs in each of these
areas. We will continue to press for the resources needed in
these areas as this bill moves forward.
improving food safety
In the area of food safety, some of the most commonly cited
statistics are that 76 million Americans become ill, 325,000
require hospitalization and 5,000 die every year from foodborne
illnesses. These statistics come from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
These statistics are disturbing. Clearly, our food safety
system is in need of improvement.
The FDA acknowledged that there are shortfalls in our
current food inspection process, in testimony before the
Subcommittee this year.
The agency said, ``The inspectional coverage of food
manufacturers, particularly high risk manufacturers, has been
inadequate over the past several years.''
With respect to imported foods, the agency said:
Inspections of imported products are also of great
concern. FDA physically inspects less than one percent
of all imported products brought into the U.S. that are
under FDA's jurisdiction. The vast majority of active
pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured overseas are
imported to the U.S. The importation of food from other
countries has been growing rapidly over the past
decade, and continues to grow. In FY 2002, we expect to
receive 7 million food import entries. FDA must improve
foreign inspection and physical port inspection
coverage and oversight of foreign producers to be able
to maintain the safety of products on that market that
we believe Americans expect and demand.
The agency that is charged with ensuring the safety of so
much of the food we eat clearly believes more must be done.
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
Rosa DeLauro offered an amendment that would have begun the
process of substantially enhancing food safety inspection in
this country.
The amendment would have provided $213 million in fiscal
year 2002 to FDA and USDA for food safety. The funding would
have put us on a path to achieving what the FDA identified
before the Subcommittee this year as an ``optimum'' domestic
food facility inspection schedule. In addition, it would have
begun to move us toward a level of 10% inspection by FDA of
imported foods. Finally, it included $50 million for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture
so that it could fund actions it deemed necessary to improve
FSIS's inspection of the meat and poultry products over which
it has responsibility.
This important amendment was unfortunately defeated by a
vote of 23 to 29.
The defeat of this amendment was regrettable. But we will
continue to work this year to give FDA and USDA the resources
necessary to make significant improvements in the safety of the
foods we eat every day.
global food for education initiative
In 2000, the United States announced an important new
international food aid initiative for children. Called the
``Global Food for Education Initiative,'' the program is
currently underway in this fiscal year, 2001.
Two of its leading proponents are Ambassador George
McGovern and former Senator Bob Dole.
The program is designed to provide a nutritious meal to
children--both to feed them and to encourage them to remain in
school. Working through the United Nations World Food Program,
private voluntary organizations and foreign governments, the
program aims to feed about 9 million children in 38 countries.
But the Secretary of Agriculture has not decided whether to
continue this program in fiscal year 2002, leaving program
participants and beneficiaries uncertain about its future.
Bipartisan bills have recently been introduced in both the
House and Senate to continue the program.
While those bills are under consideration, it is important
that the future of the program be assured.
For this reason, Representative Marcy Kaptur offered an
amendment during Committee markup to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to continue the GFEI program in fiscal year 2002,
at the level it was implemented in fiscal year 2001.
Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 26
to 32.
We urge the Department to make the decision now to continue
to operate this program in fiscal year 2002. But in the
meantime, we will work to secure agreement in this bill on its
continuation.
The WIC Program
The WIC program provides a very important safety net for
at-risk pregnant, breastfeeding and post-partum women, infants
and young children. We are concerned that the funding provided
in this bill may not be sufficient.
While the bill fully funds the Administration's request for
the WIC program, the request itself may be inadequate to meet
the need in fiscal year 2002.
The budget indicates that the Administration's funding
request funds the fiscal year 2001 participation rate for
fiscal year 2002.
But because the Administration's budget itself projects an
increase in the unemployment rate in fiscal year 2002, merely
maintaining the fiscal year 2001 level for WIC may not be
enough.
In addition, there are concerns that technical assumptions
about funds that may be available to the program in fiscal year
2002 may be overly optimistic. These overly optimistic
projections also put at risk the Department's ability to
continue the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program for mothers and
children, as well as the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program.
During markup, the Committee adopted report language
offered by Representative Rosa DeLauro that expressed concern
about the level of WIC funding and indicated that ``the
Committee will monitor and review the need for additional WIC
funding in advance of conference on the FY 2002 bill.''
We are pleased that the Committee adopted this language. We
will work to ensure that an adequate level of funding is
provided in the final FY 2002 bill for this essential program.
Biofuels
There is no doubt that one of the most significant problems
facing the United States is energy independence. The Department
of Agriculture has conducted various successful research
programs over the years that demonstrate that ethanol,
biodiesel, and other biomass fuels can be effective
alternatives for both consumers of fuels, as well as an
additional source of revenue for producers.
More than $3 billion has been invested in 55 ethanol
production facilities operating in 20 different states across
the country.
The ethanol industry is responsible for more than 40,000
direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in
increased household income annually, and more than $12.6
billion over the next five years.
The ethanol industry directly and indirectly adds more than
$6 billion to the American economy each year. The demand for
grain created by ethanol production increases net farm income
more than $12 billion annually.
Increases in ethanol production offer enormous potential
for economic growth in small rural communities. USDA has
estimated that a 100 million gallon ethanol plant could create
2,250 local jobs.
Noting that not one of the more than 100 recommendations in
the President's National Energy Policy explicitly directs
activity by the Secretary of Agriculture, apart from the long
history of the Department's involvement in these activities,
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur offered an amendment that would
provide $500 million to the Secretary, under existing
authorities, for research, development, technical, and
financial assistance programs for biofuels, including farmer-
held fuel stock reserves. Unfortunately, this amendment was
defeated 18-31.
As we look for a comprehensive solution to our energy
needs, the role of biofuels cannot be ignored. We urge the
Department to aggressively move forward using all authorities
at its disposal to maximize its support for biofuels.
David Obey.
Marcy Kaptur.