[Senate Report 111-39]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 99
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-39
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010
_______
July 7 , 2009.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kohl, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1406]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1406)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2010
Total of bill as reported to the Senate.................$123,993,248,000
Amount of 2009 appropriations........................... 126,962,906,000
Amount of 2010 budget estimate.......................... 123,759,120,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2009 appropriations................................. -2,969,658,000
2010 budget estimate................................ +234,128,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Breakdown by Title............................................... 4
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Reports to Congress.......................................... 5
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 6
Office of Tribal Relations........................... 9
Executive Operations................................. 9
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 12
Office of Civil Rights............................... 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 13
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments........................................... 14
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 14
Departmental Administration.......................... 15
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.......................................... 16
Office of Communications............................. 17
Office of Inspector General.......................... 17
Office of the General Counsel........................ 18
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 18
Economic Research Service............................ 19
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 19
Agricultural Research Service........................ 20
National Institute of Food and Agriculture........... 26
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 36
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 036
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 48
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 51
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 52
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 52
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 54
Farm Service Agency.................................. 55
Risk Management Agency............................... 60
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 60
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 61
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 63
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 63
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 68
Rural Housing Service.................................... 69
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 77
Rural Energy for America Program......................... 81
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 82
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 88
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 88
Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 97
Title VI:
Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 102
Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration........... 110
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 112
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 115
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 115
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 116
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 116
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 120
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............ 122
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 130
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 Committee
2009 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... 26,091,624 29,927,132
Title II: Conservation programs... 1,309,177 1,015,027
Title III: Rural economic and 7,092,791 3,046,473
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 76,905,162 86,085,432
Title V: Foreign assistance and 2,594,405 2,079,499
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies and 2,051,397 2,350,089
Food and Drug Administration.....
Title VII: General provisions..... -816,150 -510,404
Other appropriations 11,734,500 .................
(discretionary)..................
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 126,962,906 123,993,248
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunication and
electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the competing priorities that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2010.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report. The Committee provides full pay costs, as requested by
the President, for agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report
request.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,174,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 5,285,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,285,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,285,000 for
the Office of the Secretary.
Animal Fighting.--The Committee is very concerned about
reports of illegal animal fighting activities and directs the
Secretary to work with relevant agencies on the most effective
and proper means for investigating and enforcing laws and
regulations regarding these activities.
Global Food Security.--The Committee continues its strong
support for programs that provide emergency food assistance
throughout the world and work to achieve sustainable global
food security. Elsewhere in this act, the Committee provides
significant increases for Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education programs which provide both emergency, food
systems, and nutritional development assistance. In addition,
the Committee provides guidance and resources to improve the
efficiency of food aid programs, enhance agricultural
development activities in food-deprived regions, and provide
for higher nutritional content in food aid products.
The Government Accountability Office [GAO] has made a
number of recommendations to reduce the non-food costs related
to assistance programs administered by USDA and USAID which are
under the jurisdiction of this Committee. A general provision
in this bill references a number of those recommendations and
does so in a way that fully retains the balance of interests
that have established the U.S. food aid programs as the most
generous and effective in the world for more than half a
century.
This general provision requires agencies responsible for
administering humanitarian food assistance programs under the
jurisdiction of this act to provide information to the
appropriations committees of the House and the Senate regarding
improved program efficiencies. The Committee views humanitarian
food assistance programs as a strong expression of the United
States' commitment as the world leader in fighting world hunger
and in providing critical assistance to extremely vulnerable
populations living in desperate environments. However, the GAO
has reported that in recent years the cost of these programs
has escalated while the actual volume of food assistance has
declined.
The Committee believes that the best way to initiate
meaningful reforms in food aid program administration is for
the primary agencies responsible to conduct a review and
evaluation of current practices, examine recommendations by GAO
(and others), and work together toward the common goal of
supporting the primary objectives inherent in these programs
and to maintain the integrity of these programs as envisioned
by their authorization. The requirements included in this
section will encourage the leading agencies to work toward
consensus on ways to enhance the number of people receiving
food assistance and to improve their coordination in program
delivery.
In addition, another general provision in this act provides
for grant(s) to develop and field test new food products
designed to cost-effectively improve the nutritional delivery
and functional form of food assistance products provided
through the McGovern-Dole and Food for Peace title II programs,
and to best address recipient needs within the logistical
operating environment of these field-based programs. The
Committee is aware of the potential to greatly enhance the
short and long-term health of individuals, especially infants
and young children, suffering from malnutrition if improvements
in nutritional content, product composition, packaging, and
other components of food products were realized. Also,
humanitarian food assistance is frequently delivered in some of
the harshest physical environments in the world and in areas
where transportation and storage logistics are extremely
challenging.
The Committee is aware of significant advances in food
science and technology that should be utilized to cost-
effectively improve products beneficial for use in food
assistance programs and the Secretary is directed, acting
through the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics, to carry out a grants program better to incorporate
those and other advances as part of McGovern-Dole and Food for
Peace title II programs. The Secretary is further encouraged to
give priority to proposals from non-governmental organizations
that demonstrate private sector partnering and in-kind
contributions.
In addition, the Secretary is encouraged, through the
authorities of the Research, Education, and Economics mission
area, to conduct assessments of methods and tools used by non-
governmental organizations and international agencies to assess
nutritional gaps among populations served by U.S. humanitarian
food assistance programs with recommendations on how to improve
such programs in the field at the lowest possible cost. The
Secretary should also undertake an assessment on the most cost-
effective technologies for the purification and supply of safe
water which could be implemented in the field to benefit these
highly vulnerable populations and to make recommendations on
the most cost-effective and commercially available systems that
require priority research assistance.
The Committee expects a report on the status of these
activities. In addition, the Committee expects a report by
September 1, 2010, regarding the actual awarding of such grant
or grants, the findings of relevant field tests, and the
projected applications of new products in food assistance
programs.
Contributions by individuals with special expertise in
humanitarian food assistance and international agricultural
challenges are extremely critical as we witness a rising crisis
of world hunger due in part to climate change, shifting world
commodity markets, civil unrest and other factors. Funds are
provided in this act to support the Borlaug Fellowship Program,
authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
and the Committee believes this program will play an important
role in expanding the agricultural knowledge base throughout
the world in order to increase food production on a sustainable
basis. In addition, the Committee is aware of the ``Borlaug
Dialogue'' (and its associated functions) which provides a
forum for world leadership related to international food
assistance. The Committee encourages the Secretary to support
this activity and for the Department to maintain a strong role
in the fight against world hunger.
The Committee believes that the establishment of
sustainable food systems is the proper alternative to emergency
food assistance. This will require increased awareness in
under-developed countries of effective farm practices and the
dynamics of agriculture on local and regional economies.
Resources and guidance provided in this act will help U.S.
Federal agencies and non-Federal partners, including land grant
institutions, play an increased role in this important
transition in the direction of global food security.
The differing nutritional needs of populations,
particularly in areas with high incidence of HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, makes the composition and quality of foods available
through programs such as Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education Program extremely important elements in the
delivery of humanitarian food assistance. Elsewhere in this
act, the Committee makes recommendations for improvements to
the quality and nutritional content of food products that are
included in U.S. foreign food assistance programs. The
Committee strongly believes that these measures will result in
substantial short and long-term health benefits among food aid
beneficiaries, especially among the most vulnerable populations
such as children, the elderly, and those facing life-
threatening disease. The Secretary is directed to continue
working with the State Department and, in particular the USAID,
and affected stakeholders toward modifications which are
necessary to improve nutritional benefits while maintaining
efficiency in procurement and payment practices. The Committee
further requests the Department to keep the Committee apprised
of ongoing studies on this subject.
OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS
Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
The Office of Tribal Relations will interact with USDA
program agencies to understand pending actions that may affect
Indian tribes. This interaction and programmatic knowledge will
improve USDA's ability to conduct consultation activities,
thereby better addressing the needs of USDA tribal constituents
and improving relationships.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for
the Office of Tribal Relations.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, the Office of Homeland Security
and the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $10,651,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 16,732,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,032,000
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, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and
international food and agriculture issues, provides policy
direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses
of climate change impacts on agriculture and forestry, and is
responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop
outlook and situation material within the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,032,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 for the
Office of Energy and Climate Change.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $14,711,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 15,559,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,219,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,219,000
for the National Appeals Division. The Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $200,000 for information technology
modernization.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $9,054,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 9,436,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,436,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,436,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $974,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 2,994,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,859,000
The Office of Homeland Security formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Office directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,859,000 for
the Office of Homeland Security. The Committee recommendation
includes increases of $750,000 for a protective security detail
and $115,000 for national intelligence analysis.
OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The purpose of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach is to
increase the accessibility of USDA programs to underserved
constituents. The Office would oversee the Office of Small
Farms Coordination and the Advisory Committee for Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers. In addition, the Office would coordinate
the activities of various USDA programs and agencies that have
as a mission purpose the provision of assistance to underserved
constituents and would generally encourage and advocate for
full participation by all Americans in USDA programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $17,527,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 63,579,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,579,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational
services are also provided to the Office of the General
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,579,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount is
an increase of $46,052,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level.
Information Technology Security.--The Committee is greatly
concerned by security failures of the Department's various
information technology components. The Department produces and
compiles a number of information documents that are extremely
market sensitive or otherwise of a nature that the public
release of such information must be tightly controlled. It is
completely unacceptable for these information systems to be
accessed by unauthorized entities. Accordingly, the Committee
recommendation includes the full increase requested by the
President for upgrading the security of the Department's
information systems, including increases of $19,000,000 for
security assessments, $14,500,000 for security tool deployment,
and $12,300,000 for the Agriculture and Security Operations
Center. Further, the Committee expects a report on the
introduction of these improvements to the Department's
information system, including a timetable for their full
implementation, and a summary of all Department-wide activities
relating to information security.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,954,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 6,566,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,566,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget,
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary,
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,566,000 for
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $871,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
provides oversight of civil rights and related functions. This
includes coordination of the administration of civil rights
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $21,551,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 23,922,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,422,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,422,000
for the Office of Civil Rights. The Committee remains concerned
by reports relating to the Department's long civil rights
history and expects the Department to continue working toward
resolution of associated claims. To better assist the
Department in this regard, the Committee's recommendation for
the Office of Civil Rights includes increases of $250,000 each
for alternative dispute resolution standardization, alternative
dispute resolution training, and for investigations. In
addition, the recommendation includes an increase of $750,000
to address civil rights-related deficiencies as identified by
the General Accountability Office.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $687,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 806,000
Committee recommendation................................ 806,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics,
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $806,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $268,244,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 346,182,000
Committee recommendation................................ 274,482,000
\1\Includes $24,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-
building Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC,
and in leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC,
area. Annual appropriations finance payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for leased space and related
services. Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and
repairs D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible
for major nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent
rates pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to
appeal. For the last several years the Department has
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $274,482,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2009 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 budget Committee
2009 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 168,901 237,901 168,901
Building Operations............................................. 61,843 94,781 92,081
DHS Building Security........................................... 13,500 13,500 13,500
Public Law 111-5................................................ 24,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 268,244 346,182 274,482
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes an increase of
$27,000,000 for the consolidation of leased space, which is an
activity the Department has identified for the achievement of
long-term savings. The Secretary is directed to provide a
report to the Committee on the progress of this consolidation
and a detailed estimate on the amount and timing of near and
long-term savings. In addition, the Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $3,000,000 for security support.
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,100,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 5,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,125,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,125,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $27,011,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 43,319,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,319,000
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,319,000
for Departmental Administration.
Global Food Security.--The President's budget includes
$13,000,000 for Provincial Reconstruction Teams to provide
policy advice, technical assistance, and related support
activities in the rural areas of select countries. The
Committee takes very seriously its responsibility to support
sustainable food systems in under-developed countries, and
believes the basic initiative proposed by the President has
substantial merit. The Committee feels strongly that the
development of sustainable food systems is the proper
alternative to emergency food assistance.
Elsewhere in this act, the Committee makes recommendations
to enhance efficiencies in the administration of food aid
programs, improve the nutrient content of food aid products,
and to encourage the Secretary to play a lead role with Federal
and non-governmental partners in the task of helping achieve
global food security. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $13,000,000 for Departmental assistance
to agricultural producers and allied entities in areas of the
world (not limited to those countries identified by the
President) where the development of sustainable food systems,
as part of overall regional economic stability, remains a high
priority.
The Committee expects these funds to be used in a manner
that best promotes long-term development of rural economies and
food systems by relying on the expertise of USDA agencies and
their partners, such as land grant institutions. In much of the
world, there is a desperate need for technical assistance in
the areas of agricultural production, land and water
conservation, rural development systems, and a better
understanding of the structure and dynamics of local and
regional economic structures. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture is perhaps the best repository in the world for the
collection and dissemination of this expertise, and the
opportunity now exists for the expansion of this knowledge base
to occur, on a global humanitarian scale, in much the same way
that the Extension Service and other USDA agencies have served
U.S. agriculture.
The Committee expects a report on the allocation of
resources under this directive with a follow-up report by June
1, 2010, regarding the countries served, the agencies and
partners selected for these activities, the program objectives
and goals achieved, and other information relating to this
program including the practicality of expansion to other
regions in the future.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $3,877,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 3,968,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,968,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,968,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $9,514,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 9,922,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,722,000
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 with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,722,000 for
the Office of Communications.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $108,266,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 88,781,000
Committee recommendation................................ 88,025,000
\1\Includes $22,500,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The Office of Inspector General was established October 12,
1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452).
This act expanded and provided specific authorities for the
activities of the Office of Inspector General which had
previously been carried out under the general authorities of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $88,025,000
for the Office of Inspector General. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $500,000 for
investigations related to food safety and civil rights. In
addition, the recommendation includes the fiscal year 2009
level for OIG to continue to address violations of section 26
of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate
with State and local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $41,620,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 44,651,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,551,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,551,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $609,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
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;
National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research
Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
The Committee is aware that the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008 authorized a program for competitive
research and education grants for the study of antibiotic
resistant bacteria and safe and effective alternatives for
antibiotics in animal agriculture. The Committee encourages
USDA to work with other entities, as appropriate, to analyze
sources of antibiotic resistance as they pertain to food
production and processing methods and develop and recommend new
practices to reduce the development and transfer to humans of
antibiotic resistance. The Committee directs USDA to report on
its activities to this effect.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $79,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 82,478,000
Committee recommendation................................ 82,078,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,078,000
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee recommendation
includes increases of $900,000 for research on the economics of
environmental service markets and policies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, and $500,000 to carry out the Organic
Production and Market Data Initiative.
The Committee directs the Economic Research Service to
prepare and publish a report on consumer perceptions of canned
fruits and vegetables. The Economic Research Service shall
share these findings with the Food and Nutrition Service to
assist in the development of an effective marketing and
promotional pilot program for canned fruits and vegetables
under the Healthy Incentives Pilot program authorized under the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $151,565,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 161,830,000
Committee recommendation................................ 161,830,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $161,830,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Committee
recommendation includes increases of $5,750,000 for the
restoration of the Agricultural Chemical Use Program, and
$1,600,000 to provide a data series on bio-energy production
and utilization. Included in this amount is $37,908,000 for the
Census of Agriculture.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee is pleased that
NASS is currently conducting an Organics Production follow-on
survey. The Committee encourages NASS to take all necessary
steps to collect in-depth coverage on acreage, yield,
production, inventory, production practices, sales and
expenses, marketing channels, and demographics of the organic
industry, and includes $250,000 for this purpose.
Rice Stocks Reporting.--Market transparency provided by
timely stocks reporting enhances the ability of rice farmers to
profitably market their crop. The Committee expects that NASS
will implement a September 1 stocks report for rice to include
old crop stocks.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $1,140,406,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,153,368,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,181,632,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,181,632,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the
premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports
ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation's
food supply, environment, rural communities, and working toward
energy independence.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation does not accept the
budget proposals to transfer the Office of Pest Management
Policy to the Office of the Chief Economist or to decrease
funds for property management.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000, as
requested in the budget for increased research on new varieties
and hybrids of bioenergy feedstocks and the development of new
production practices to maximize sustainable yield of high
quality feedstocks. The Committee recommendation also includes
increases of $3,816,000, as requested in the budget, for
increased research on livestock and crop production, including
strengthening grain disease research to protect the world grain
supply at Manhattan, Kansas; Corvallis, Oregon; and St. Paul,
Minnesota. Further, the Committee recommendation includes an
increase of $8,513,000, as requested in the budget, for
increased research relating to human nutrition, including the
prevention of childhood obesity. Finally, the Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $2,250,000, as requested
in the budget, for increased research for assessing and
managing climate change risks to agricultural production
systems, including the development of new crop varieties that
can thrive under stress of weather variability and the
development of agricultural management strategies for systems
that are economically competitive and environmentally
sustainable at Akron, Colorado.
The Committee recommendation includes increases of
$2,000,000 for research regarding cranberry production,
including the development of more environmentally sound growing
methods; and $2,000,000 for increased research regarding Asian
Citrus Psyllid/Citrus Greening Disease.
The Committee recommendation does not concur with the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposals as it relates to
the following projects: Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Bioremediation
Research, Beltsville, Maryland; Center for Agroforestry,
Booneville, Arkansas; Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center,
Booneville, Arkansas; Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research
(Pennington), New Orleans, Louisiana; Endophyte Research,
Booneville, Arkansas; Formosan Subterranean Termites Research,
New Orleans, Louisiana; Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization,
Beltsville, Maryland; Improved Crop Production Practices,
Auburn, Alabama; Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Washington, DC;
National Center for Agricultural Law, Beltsville, Maryland;
Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, Maryland; Seismic and Acoustic
Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford,
Mississippi; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, Arkansas; Tropical
Aquaculture Feeds (Oceanic Institute), Hilo, Hawaii; and Water
Use Reduction, Dawson, Georgia.
The Committee recommendation provides the following
funding: Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, South Dakota,
$1,250,000; Biomedical Materials in Plants (Biotech
Foundation), Beltsville, Maryland, $1,700,000; Biotechnology
Research and Development Corporation, Washington, DC,
$3,500,000; Human Nutrition Research, Boston, Massachusetts,
$350,000; Human Nutrition Research, Houston, Texas, $300,000;
New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, Orono,
Maine, $2,249,000; Northwestern Center for Small Fruits,
Corvallis, Oregon, $275,000; Phytoestrogen Research, New
Orleans, Louisiana, $1,750,000; Potato Diseases, Beltsville,
Maryland, $40,000; Water Management Research Laboratory,
Brawley, California, $340,000; Wild Rice, St. Paul, Minnesota,
$300,000; Genomics Specialist, St. Paul, Minnesota, $200,000;
Dairy Forage Research Center, Marshfield, Wisconsin,
$2,500,000; North Carolina Human Nutrition Center, Kannapolis,
North Carolina, $1,000,000; Computer Vision Engineer and
Technician, Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville,
West Virginia, $400,000; and Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and
Virus Disease Management, Prosser, Washington, $200,000.
Aquaculture.--The Committee agrees with the merger of the
Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, with the
Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center.
However, the Committee does not agree with the budget proposal
as it relates to the Aquaculture Fisheries Center in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, and directs that the important work of the
Center be continued at full funding. Further, the Committee
directs that $350,000 from this amount be used for a specific
cooperative agreement with the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at
the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory.--The
Committee supports the administration's request to relocate the
Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory [ABADRL].
The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 to relocate
ABADRL from its current location to Manhattan, Kansas.
Bighorn Sheep Health.--Bighorn sheep disease is a major
issue for domestic sheep producers in the West. Potential
disease transmission arising from interactions between wild and
domestic sheep pose significant challenges with considerable
economic impact. ARS shall provide the Committee with a report
on its current research on this subject as well as a research
proposal to develop methods to control infectious diseases at
the domestic animal-wildlife interface with specific focus on
bighorn sheep health. When preparing this report the Committee
encourages the Department to work with scientists at the Animal
Disease Research Unit, co-located at the University of Idaho
and Washington State University and the U.S. Sheep Experiment
Station in DuBois, Idaho.
Bioenergy Feedstock.--Northern Great Plains Research
Laboratory in Mandan, North Dakota, is a partner in the
agency's high priority bioenergy feedstock program to develop
strategies to integrate bioenergy production into existing U.S.
agricultural systems. The Mandan laboratory is studying new
production practices and systems that can maximize yields of
high quality feedstock in the Northern Great Plains. The
Committee recommendation restores $543,000 at the Mandan ARS
laboratory, which shall be made available for the location's
bioenergy feedstock research program.
Center for Agroforestry.--The Committee expects that the
funds made available for the Center for Agroforestry be used to
continue research into all five temperate-zone agroforestry
practices applicable in Midwestern States.
Food Allergies.--The Committee expects ARS to fund research
related to food allergies at no less than the fiscal year 2009
level, and encourages the agency to consider how processing
technologies can alter the characteristics of allergens in
foods, to assess any potential to reduce allergenicity in foods
through food processing technologies, and develop better
immunoassays for detection of food allergen residues before and
after food processing.
Human Nutrition.--The Committee recognizes the need to
investigate diet-related health problems, which include obesity
and its associated illnesses and that these needs are
particularly great in rural and Native American communities.
Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes an increase
of $1,000,000, as proposed in the budget as part of increased
research on Human Nutrition, to the ARS Grand Forks Human
Nutrition Research Center, which provides unique contributions
related to these nutrition-related challenges. Further, the
Committee directs the agency to continue development of the
Center's programs to address obesity and diet-related health
issues in rural and Native American communities, the study of
minerals and other nutrients contained in widely consumed foods
contributing to healthy diets, and the role of nutrition in
preventing chronic diseases among all Americans.
The Human Nutrition Centers, including the Center in Little
Rock, Arkansas, focus on the effects of dietary factors and
nutritional status (including body composition) on disease
prevention and maintenance of good health. The Committee
recommends that particular attention be given to critical
periods of development and vulnerable stages of life (including
the nutritional status of women at the time of conception;
nutritional issues during pregnancy and lactation; and diets,
nutrition, and the development of eating behaviors during
childhood, adolescence, and later stages of life). The
Committee further recommends attention to disease prevention of
cancer, cardiovascular disease, and bone and muscle disease.
Other extremely important areas requiring continued attention
include brain development and cognitive function in children;
maintenance of cognitive function and vision in the elderly;
the developmental origins of adult health and disease; the
effects of non-nutrient bioactive food components; the
development, function, and enhancement of the immune system;
the understanding of dietary influences on inflammation; and
gene/nutrient interactions. The Committee recommendation
therefore includes $1,000,000, as proposed in the budget as
part of increased research on Human Nutrition, to the
Children's Nutrition Center in Little Rock, Arkansas and
$3,937,000, as requested in the budget, for increased research
on human nutrition headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The Committee is aware of need for upgrades of the
Metabolic Diet Facility at the Human Nutrition Research Center
on Aging at Tufts University and encourages ARS to initiate
such improvements from within available funds.
The Committee recommendation also includes $1,000,000 for
the establishment of an Agriculture Research Service Human
Nutrition Center on the North Carolina Research Campus in
Kannapolis, North Carolina.
Invasive Weed Management.--The Committee is aware of the
severity of the invasive weed problem in the Northwestern
United States, including cheat grass, medusa head rye, salt
cedar, and tall white top and Eurasian water milfoil. The
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $500,000 for
increased research to address invasive species genetics,
population ecology, and management for these critical problems.
Muscadine Grape Research.--The Committee recognizes that
the muscadine grape's unique natural properties allow for great
potential in nutraceutical and food additive uses provided more
varietal characterization and horticulture improvements. The
Committee requests ARS and its Poplarville, Mississippi
facility to report to the Committee on an appropriate multi-
year research and development strategy that could assist small
fruit growers and processors to take full commercial advantage
of this native plant.
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.--The National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF] will research biological
threats involving zoonotic and foreign animal diseases. The
facility will allow basic research; diagnostic development,
testing and validation; advanced countermeasure development;
and training for high-consequence livestock diseases. The
Department of Homeland Security recently selected the Manhattan
Campus Site in Manhattan, Kansas for the construction of NBAF,
which will serve as the successor site to the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center [PIADC]. In order to begin the transition
from the PIADC to NBAF, the Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 for a cooperative agreement with Kansas State
University for research into Rift Valley Fever, African Swine
Fever, and Peste des Petits Ruminants.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee
concurs with the staffing plan at the Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center and the Committee recommendation
includes $700,000 to support two new scientists in organic/
sustainable agriculture and value-added/biofuel production.
Pollinator Recovery.--The Committee continues its strong
concern for reports of Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD] and
indications that this threat to the U.S. food supply is
spreading. Honey bees and other pollinators perform a vital
function relating to the production of much of our fruit and
vegetable production, and the threat of CCD places this
production at high risk. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,000,000 for ARS research related to pollinator species.
Shellfish Research.--Natural oyster production has fallen
dramatically from a combination of factors leading to increased
mortality, including low disease resistance and prevention. The
Committee understands the need for comprehensive research on
shellfish and shellfish disease in the Northeast, and provides
an increase of $500,000 for ARS to coordinate research,
including genetic research, among institutions with expertise.
Termite Research.--The Committee supports continuation of
the development and deployment of sustainable areawide control
of termites through community engagement and development of
control methods for Pacific-Asian invasive termites and the
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for this purpose.
The Committee further recommends that the administrative venue
for this initiative be the Agriculture Research Service Mid
South Area to realize the synergy of the termite research and
outreach conducted at the Southern Regional Research Center in
New Orleans.
Wheat Stem Rust.--The rapid spread of the wheat stem rust
known as Ug99, from East Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and
most recently to the Middle East is of great concern to the
Committee. Ug99 is a very virulent strain of stem rust and
could threaten 80 percent of the world's wheat supply
(including wheat production in the United States) if resistant
varieties of wheat are not developed. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,500,000, an increase of $2,000,000,
to speed efforts to develop Ug99-resistant wheat varieties.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $222,752,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 47,027,000
\1\Includes $176,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,027,000
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research
Service.
Modern research facilities are an important part of the
ability of ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose,
and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that
modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all
ongoing projects. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations for Agricultural Research Service,
Buildings and Facilities:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Center; Beltsville, MD.......... 3,000
Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT............... 4,527
Agricultural Research Center; Pullman, WA............. 3,740
Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT............... 2,500
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV....... 2,000
ARS Biotechnology Lab; Lorcom, MS..................... 1,500
ARS Forage-Animal Production Research Facility; 2,000
Lexington, KY........................................
ARS Research and Development Center; Auburn, AL....... 3,500
ARS Waste Management Research Facility; Bowling Green, 2,000
KY...................................................
Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du 4,000
Sac, WI..............................................
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; 4,000
Stoneville, MS.......................................
National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia, 3,500
MO...................................................
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI.. 5,000
Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA.............. 2,000
Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE........ 3,760
-----------------
Total........................................... 47,027
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee
directs ARS, when planning and designing the National Plant and
Genetics Security Center, to include plans for expanded
vivarium capacity.
Red River Valley, North Dakota.--The Committee is aware of
the facility improvement needs at the Red River Valley
Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, and
directs ARS to provide an updated report on the feasibility,
requirements, and scope for facility needs at this location.
The report should detail any expansion of building size, costs,
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other
requirements for operations. The report should also detail
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this
location.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be
known as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA].
The Secretary shall transfer to NIFA, effective not later than
October 1, 2009, any and all other authorities administered by
the Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education
and Extension Service. The mission is to work with university
partners and customers to advance research, extension, and
higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and
related environmental and human sciences to benefit people,
communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $691,043,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 622,892,000
Committee recommendation................................ 757,821,000
Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are
USDA's principal entree to the university system of the United
States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and
education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural, Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624); the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171); and the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and
other cooperators to encourage and assist the State
institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and
education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of
the 50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of
Forestry; the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee
University and West Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant
Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other
eligible institutions. The appropriated funds provide Federal
support for research and education programs at these
institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $757,821,000
for research and education activities of the National Institute
of Food and Agriculture. In addition to the appropriation for
research and education activities, this bill makes available
$149,000,000 in mandatory funding for research related to
organics, specialty crops, beginning farmer and rancher,
renewable energy, and other research. Therefore, NIFA will have
a total of $906,821,000 in funding for research and related
activities in fiscal year 2010, which is an increase of
$77,778,000 above the previous year.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act.............................................. 215,000
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program. 30,000
Evans-Allen program (1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University 49,000
and West Virginia State University)...................
Animal Health and Disease Research..................... 1,000
Special Research Grants:
Advanced Genetic Technologies (KY)................. 650
Advancing Biofuel Production (TX).................. 300
Aegilops Cylindrica (WA)........................... 200
Agricultural Diversification (HI).................. 153
Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives (PA)..... 248
Agriculture Science (OH)........................... 450
Air Quality (TX, KS)............................... 300
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium (AR, IA, KS). 1,000
Aquaculture (LA)................................... 150
Aquaculture (MS)................................... 361
Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development (WV). 550
Avian Bioscience (DE).............................. 150
Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID).............. 547
Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration (TN) 1,000
Biodesign and Bioprocessing (VA)................... 223
Biomass-based Energy Research (OK, MS)............. 839
Brucellosis Vaccine (MT)........................... 305
Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and 176
Disease Resistance (NM)...........................
Center for One Medicine............................ 500
Center for Rural Studies (VT)...................... 350
Childhood Obesity and Nutrition (VT)............... 250
Citrus Canker/Greening (FL)........................ 200
Competitiveness of Agricultural Products (WA)...... 400
Cool Season Legume Research (ID, ND, WA)........... 350
Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality (GA).... 346
Cranberry/Blueberry (MA)........................... 160
Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding (NJ)...... 550
Crop Integration and Production (SD)............... 400
Dairy and Meat Goat Research (TX).................. 200
Dairy Farm Profitability (PA)...................... 372
Delta Revitalization Project (MS).................. 176
Drought Mitigation (NE)............................ 600
Efficient Irrigation (NM, TX)...................... 575
Emerald Ash Borer (OH)............................. 550
Environmentally Safe Products (VT)................. 250
Floriculture (HI).................................. 300
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, 1,213
MO, NV)...........................................
Food and Fuel Initiative (IA)...................... 298
Forages for Advancing Livestock Production (KY).... 473
Fresh Produce Food Safety (CA)..................... 750
Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and 797
Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease (MS)
Global Change, UV Monitoring....................... 1,408
Grain Sorghum (KS)................................. 1,000
Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable Agriculture 150
(OR, WA)..........................................
High Performance Computing (UT).................... 263
Human Nutrition (LA)............................... 526
Infectious Disease Research (CO)................... 650
Inland Marine Aquaculture (VA)..................... 400
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR).... 500
Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical 188
Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems
(IN)..............................................
Invasive Plant Management (MT)..................... 270
Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and 210
Extension (UT)....................................
Leopold Center Hypoxia (IA)........................ 105
Livestock and Dairy Policy (NY).................... 200
Maple Research (VT)................................ 165
Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses (IN).......... 188
Midwest Poultry Consortium (IA).................... 250
Milk Safety (PA)................................... 821
National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium 655
(CO, GA, NY)......................................
National Center for Soybean Biotechnology (MO)..... 690
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering (NM)....... 209
Nevada Arid Rangelands (NV)........................ 500
New Century Farm (IA).............................. 350
New Crop Opportunities (KY)........................ 525
New Satellite and Computer-based Technology for 654
Agriculture (MS)..................................
Oil Resources from Desert Plants (NM).............. 176
Organic Cropping (OR).............................. 149
Organic Cropping (WA).............................. 264
Organic Waste Utilization (NM)..................... 69
Pierce's Disease (CA).............................. 2,000
Policy Analysis for a National Secure and 200
Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry, and Energy
Program (TX).....................................
Potato Research (ID, ME, OR, WA)................... 1,037
Precision Agriculture (KY)......................... 671
Preharvest Food Safety (KS)........................ 500
Protein Utilization (IA)........................... 600
Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics (ID)................. 300
Renewable Energy Products (ND)..................... 1,000
Ruminant Nutrition Consortium (SD)................. 563
Rural Policies Institute (IA)...................... 889
Russian Wheat Aphid (CO)........................... 250
Seed Technology (SD)............................... 350
Small Fruit Research (ID, OR, WA).................. 300
Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated 187
Agriculture (NM)..................................
Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium (NM)........ 350
Soybean Cyst Nematode (MO)......................... 556
Soybean Research (IL).............................. 400
Specialty Crops (AR)............................... 175
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources (PA). 142
Sustainable Beef Supply (MT)....................... 200
Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable 250
Sources (VA)......................................
Sustainable Production and Processing Research for 200
Lowbush Specialty Crops (ME)......................
Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management (LA)....... 200
Tropical and Subtropical Research/T-Star (HI)...... 800
Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project (MO).... 588
Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape 260
Foundation Block (WA).............................
Viticulture Consortium (CA)........................ 1,200
Water Conservation (KS)............................ 500
Wetland Plants (LA)................................ 200
Wheat Genetic Research (KS)........................ 1,000
Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership 300
(WY)..............................................
Wood Utilization (ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, 4,841
WV)...............................................
World Food and Health Initiative (IL).............. 250
----------------
Total, Special Research Grants................... 50,456
================
Improved Pest Control:
Expert IPM Decision Support System................. 158
Integrated Pest Management......................... 2,450
Minor Crop Pest Management, IR-4................... 12,360
Pest Management Alternatives....................... 1,455
----------------
Total, Improved Pest Control..................... 16,423
================
Critical Ag Materials Act of 1984...................... 1,083
Aquaculture Centers, section 1475...................... 3,928
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education......... 14,500
1994 Institutions Research Program..................... 2,000
Supplemental and Alternative Crops, section 1473 D..... 850
AFRI................................................... 295,181
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration (NM, TX, 983
MT)...................................................
New Era Rural Technology Program....................... 750
Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Program...... 2,000
Sun Grant Program...................................... 1,500
Federal Administration:
Ag-based Industrial Lubricants (IA)................ 405
Agriculture Development in the American Pacific 400
(HI)..............................................
Agriculture Waste Utilization (WV)................. 500
Animal Health Research and Diagnostics (KY)........ 300
Applied Agriculture and Environmental Research (CA) 350
Aquaculture (PA)................................... 164
Biotechnology Research (MS)........................ 480
Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence (PA).......... 340
Clemson University Veterinary Institute (SC)....... 1,000
Cotton Research (TX)............................... 200
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (IA) 110
Data Information System (REEIS).................... 2,704
Ethnobotanicals (MD)............................... 550
Farmland Preservation (OH)......................... 160
Florida Biomass to Fuels Conversion Program........ 300
International Center for Food Technology 750
Development to Expand Markets (IN)................
Kansas Biobased Polymer Initiative................. 750
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops (TX)................. 300
Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center 187
(IA)..............................................
Mississippi Valley State University................ 1,002
NE Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME)......... 295
Office of Extramural Programs...................... 440
Pay, Move and Administrative Costs................. 9,212
Peer Panels........................................ 397
PM-10 Study (WA)................................... 150
Polymer Research (KS).............................. 2,000
Rural Systems (MS)................................. 215
Shrimp Aquaculture (MS)............................ 300
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (OH).................. 500
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (MI).................. 150
Water Pollutants (WV).............................. 500
----------------
Total, Federal Administration.................... 25,111
================
Higher Education:
Graduate Fellowships Grants........................ 3,859
Institution Challenge Grants....................... 5,654
1890s Institution Capacity Building Grants......... 16,500
Multicultural Scholars............................. 981
Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants 7,737
Program...........................................
Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program.... 3,342
Secondary/2-Year Post Secondary.................... 983
Veterinary Medical Services Act.................... 5,000
Alaska Native-Serving and Native-Hawaiian Serving 3,200
Institutions......................................
Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas...... 800
----------------
Total, Higher Education Grants................... 48,056
================
Total, Research and Education.................... 757,821
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $296,681,000 for the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative [AFRI].
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 specifies priority areas within the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on
conventional (classical) plant and animal breeding. The
Committee strongly concurs with the intent of this section, and
requests a report from the agency as to its plans for
implementing the intent of this important conventional/
classical plant and animal breeding requirement.
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Agriculture Policy Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,213,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy
Institute, of which $340,000 shall be used to conduct analysis
of rangeland, cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada-
Reno.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,200,000 for grants to individual eligible institutions or
consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii,
with grant funds to be awarded equally between Alaska and
Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242.
The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the use
of grant funds as authorized.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $850,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption
needs and encourages the Department to seek stakeholder input
and to provide funds in a manner that reaches those areas most
likely to see expansions in canola production.
Community Food Projects.--The Committee expects the
Department of Agriculture to consider as fully eligible for
Community Food Project [CFP] grants any program that encourages
the effective use of community resources to combat hunger and
the root causes of hunger through the recovery of donated food,
distribution of meals to nonprofit organizations, and the
training of unemployed and underemployed adults for careers in
food service. The Committee considers such programs to meet the
requisite eligibility standards for CFP grants in that they
meet the food needs of low-income people, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and
plan for long-term solutions to address such needs.
Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The
Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research
in Hawaii and expects priorities of this activity (as defined
by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and
improvement of germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to
derive and release new commercial varieties and continue
research on disease resistance and insect control. The
Committee also provides funding for tropical and subtropical
research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation,
recommendation and distribution of funds through the Pacific
Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration Groups.
Food Allergies.--The Committee notes that evidence suggests
that the prevalence of food allergies are increasing. It has
been reported that food allergy is the leading cause of
anaphylaxis outside the hospital setting. Currently, there is
no treatment or cure, and the only way of dealing with such
allergies is strict avoidance. The Committee encourages USDA,
through AFRI, to fund meritorious research regarding food
allergies, including efforts to determine risk factors for food
allergies and the development of models for allergic
sensitization to foods.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of the National Research
Initiative, the predecessor program to the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI]. As this program has grown, however,
the allocation of AFRI funds by NIFA for research on forestry
and related natural resource topics has fallen behind. In the
future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to
put a greater emphasis on AFRI funding for forestry and natural
resources topics with a goal of eventually providing at least
10 percent of the total funds provided for AFRI for forestry
and natural resources related research on topics including:
woody plant systems, including large scale efforts to sequence
the genome for several economically important tree species,
technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and
increased tree growth rates; management of complex forest
ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity,
economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative
management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis,
geospatial analysis including landscape implications,
consideration of ecological services, providing decision
support systems; and development of nanotechnology and
biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as
critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy
security.
Special Research Grants.--The Committee recognizes the
vital relationships between Federal research activities and
land grant institutions and firmly supports the importance of
congressionally recognized research priorities. The Special
Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to
promote research among these partners in specific areas of need
to meet emerging and long-term national and regional
challenges.
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the
purpose of conducting research and related activities to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the
development of regional research centers, and to generally
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can
only be awarded if the proposed activity has undergone
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research
or related activity and the merits of the results.
Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging
important research priorities and result in a less efficient
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
For fiscal year 2010, the Committee continues its
responsibility of expressing congressional interest and
intervention in setting research priorities through the
investment of Federal funds. As the Committee has expressed in
previous years, specific problems require specific objectives
and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research
activities described in this report are intended to accomplish
the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to
extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors.
The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure
that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve
specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of
an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report by March 1, 2010 regarding the status of grant
awards for fiscal year 2010 and the specific objectives to be
sought in each case.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $474,250,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 487,005,000
Committee recommendation................................ 491,292,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of
Agriculture is authorized to provide, through the land-grant
colleges, cooperative extension work that consists of the
development of practical applications of research knowledge and
the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations of
existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture,
uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home
economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application
of such information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-
H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance or
resident at the colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $491,292,000
for extension activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever Act, section 3(b)&(c)...................... 300,000
Smith-Lever, section 3d Programs:
Food and Nutrition Education [EFNEP]............... 68,139
Farm Safety........................................ 4,863
New Technologies for Ag Extension.................. 2,000
Improve Rural Quality of Life...................... ...............
Pest Management.................................... 10,085
Children, Youth, and Families at Risk.............. 8,427
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification...... 493
Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program...... 3,090
Sustainable Agriculture............................ 4,705
----------------
Total, section 3d Programs....................... 101,802
================
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia 41,354
State University......................................
Rural Health and Safety Education...................... 1,738
1890 Facilities (sec. 1447)............................ 18,540
Grants to Youth Serving Institutions................... 1,767
Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA]............... 4,128
Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions............ 4,000
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database [FARAD]......... 1,000
Women and Minorities in STEM Fields.................... 500
Federal Administration:
Ag in the Classroom................................ 553
Childhood Farm Safety (IA)......................... 75
Conservation Technology Transfer (WI).............. 376
Dairy Education (IA)............................... 175
E-commerce (MS).................................... 231
Efficient Irrigation (NM, TX)...................... 475
Extension Specialist (MS).......................... 98
Food Production Education (VT)..................... 120
General Administration, including Pay Costs........ 8,012
Health Education Leadership (KY)................... 590
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (WI)......... 400
Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach (MI)...... 155
Iowa Vitality Center............................... 250
Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program.............. 700
National Center for Farm Safety (IA)............... 170
Nutrition Enhancement (WI)......................... 950
Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative................. 700
Pilot Technology Transfer (MS, OK)................. 209
Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight (ME) 450
Range Improvement (NM)............................. 223
Urban Horticulture (WI)............................ 376
Urban Horticulture and Marketing (IL).............. 175
Veterinary Technology Satellite Programs (KS)...... 1,000
----------------
Total, Federal Administration.................... 16,463
================
Total, Extension Activities...................... 491,292
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $56,864,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 56,864,000
Committee recommendation................................ 56,864,000
Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an
integrated research, education, and extension competitive
grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,864,000
for integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 406 Legislative Authority:
Water Quality....................................... 12,649
Food Safety......................................... 14,596
Regional Management Centers......................... 4,096
Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation.............. 1,365
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop 4,388
Systems............................................
Methyl Bromide Transition Program................... 3,054
Organic Transition Program.......................... 1,842
---------------
Total, Section 406................................ 41,990
===============
International Science and Education Grants Program...... 3,000
Critical Issues Program................................. 732
Regional Rural Development Centers Program.............. 1,312
Homeland Security, Food and Agriculture Defense 9,830
Initiative.............................................
---------------
Total, Integrated Activities...................... 56,864
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $737,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $876,675,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 872,423,000
Committee recommendation................................ 911,394,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring 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 to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $911,394,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2010 budget Committee
2009 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]................. 26,979 26,000 29,000
Cattle Fever Ticks....................................... 9,907 13,157 13,157
Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease............ 4,000 4,004 4,004
Fruit Fly Exclusion & Detection.......................... 62,320 62,920 62,920
Import/Export............................................ 12,963 13,298 13,298
Overseas Technical & Trade Operations.................... 15,725 16,172 16,172
Screwworm................................................ 27,635 27,714 27,714
Tropical Bont Tick....................................... 425 429 429
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion................... 159,954 163,694 166,694
==================================================
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING:
Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance.................. 129,180 127,122 130,614
Animal & Plant Health Reg. Enforcement................... 13,694 13,983 13,983
Avian Influenza.......................................... 60,594 60,243 60,243
Emergency Management Systems............................. 15,619 15,794 15,794
National Veterinary Stockpile............................ 3,739 3,757 3,757
Pest Detection........................................... 27,776 26,756 28,113
Select Agents............................................ 5,128 5,176 5,176
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring........... 255,730 252,831 257,680
==================================================
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT:
Aquaculture.............................................. 5,887 5,806 5,972
Biological Control....................................... 9,737 9,967 10,467
Brucellosis.............................................. 9,584 9,057 9,707
Chronic Wasting Disease.................................. 17,014 15,607 16,875
Contingency Funds........................................ 2,025 2,058 2,058
Cotton Pests............................................. 29,590 25,047 23,390
Emerging Plant Pests..................................... 133,677 143,831 159,300
Golden Nematode.......................................... 816 831 831
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,552 4,578 6,078
Gypsy Moth............................................... 4,843 4,920 5,170
Imported Fire Ant........................................ 1,893 1,902 1,902
Johne's Disease.......................................... 6,821 5,937 6,876
Noxious Weeds............................................ 1,993 1,171 1,790
Plum Pox................................................. 2,195 2,206 2,206
Pseudorabies............................................. 2,446 2,510 2,510
Scrapie.................................................. 17,733 17,906 17,906
Tuberculosis............................................. 15,657 15,516 15,764
Wildlife Services Operations............................. 76,047 70,502 76,281
Witchweed................................................ 1,510 1,517 1,517
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management.................. 345,020 340,869 366,600
==================================================
ANIMAL CARE:
Animal Welfare........................................... 21,522 21,979 21,979
Horse Protection......................................... 499 500 500
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Care.................................. 22,021 22,479 22,479
==================================================
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES:
Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................ 12,877 12,791 13,050
Environmental Compliance................................. 2,669 2,715 2,715
Plant Methods Development Labs........................... 9,712 9,949 9,949
Veterinary Biologics..................................... 16,922 17,325 17,325
Veterinary Diagnostics................................... 23,585 23,778 26,073
Wildlife Services Methods Development.................... 17,986 15,793 18,630
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services............ 83,751 82,351 87,742
==================================================
MANAGEMENT:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure.............. 4,474 4,474 4,474
Physical/Operational Security............................ 5,725 5,725 5,725
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Management................................... 10,199 10,199 10,199
==================================================
TOTAL, APHIS........................................... 876,675 872,423 911,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of
contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation monies,
as in past fiscal years, to cover additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes an appropriation of $29,000,000 for the AQI
appropriated account to conduct preclearance quarantine
inspections of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles
destined for movement from the State of Hawaii to the
continental United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United
States Virgin Islands.
Interline Activities.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,000,000 for interline activities in Hawaii. The
State of Hawaii is currently under a Federal quarantine for
fruit flies. This quarantine requires the predeparture
inspection of all airline passengers and luggage departing
Hawaii for the U.S. mainland. Although APHIS currently provides
funding to pay for inspections at the Honolulu airport, this
funding will pay for federally required inspections for flights
originating at neighbor island airports and connecting in
Honolulu.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $62,920,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection
program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2009 level shall
be used to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving
into the United States as well as activities at U.S. borders.
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $130,614,000 for the animal health monitoring and
surveillance program, which includes $350,000 for the Trichinae
certification program.
Animal Identification.--The Committee recommendation
includes $14,607,000 to continue implementation of the National
Animal Identification System.
Bio-safety.--The Committee recommendation includes $240,000
to address bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant
strains of bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont.
Disease Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $700,000 to work with North Dakota State University
and Dickinson State University to develop, test, and implement
the use of RFID tags for animal identification, strengthening
pathogen diagnostic and identification capabilities and
pinpointing problem areas in the traceback systems and methods
to resolve them.
National Farm Animal Identification and Records.--The
Committee recommendation includes $343,000 to allow additional
producers to participate in the National Farm Animal
Identification and Records Project, which electronically
identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from
birth to slaughter within 48 hours in order to combat animal
disease outbreaks.
New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $404,000 for the New Mexico
Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection
and reporting system for infectious animal diseases.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $13,983,000 for the animal and plant health regulatory
enforcement program to support Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
Avian Influenza
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $60,243,000 for avian influenza activities.
Emergency Management Systems
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,794,000 for emergency management systems.
National Veterinary Stockpile
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,757,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile.
Pest Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $28,113,000 for pest detection.
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $619,000 to continue the
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program, which is
a statewide network of insect traps and other detection tools
to serve as an early warning system against serious
agricultural pests in the State of California.
Import Inspection.--California's agricultural industry is
highly susceptible to exotic pests due to its international
border and as home to some of the Nation's busiest seaports.
The California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program is
operated at points of entry in California to prevent the
establishment of serious agricultural and environmental
invasive pests and diseases. This funding will address the
growing of interstate shipments from international ports of
entry in other States, where inspectors are not monitoring for
the pests that could devastate California agriculture. The
Committee recommendation includes $738,000 for this program.
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT
Aquaculture
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,972,000 for the aquaculture program.
Cormorant and Pelican Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $569,000 to continue telemetry and
population dynamics studies and operations to develop
environmentally and economically sustainable methods to help
catfish farmers manage cormorant and pelican populations.
Invasive Aquatic Species.--The Committee recommendation
includes $94,000 for the State of Vermont's Lake Champlain's
Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative for the control of
invasive aquatic species, which cause damage and threaten State
listed endangered species, and are one of the biggest threats
to the fishing industry in Lake Champlain.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,600,000 for the control of VHS in
the Great Lakes States.
Biological Control
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $10,467,000 for biological control.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 for control of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in
Tennessee.
Brucellosis Eradication
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,707,000 for brucellosis eradication.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.--The
Committee recommendation includes $650,000 for the Greater
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to continue
brucellosis prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication.
The Committee encourages the coordination of Federal, State,
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $16,875,000 for the chronic wasting disease
certification and control program to include additional
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely
identification of the presence of this disease.
Contingency Funds
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,058,000 for APHIS contingency funds, allowing APHIS
to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal
diseases, and pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to
meet emergency conditions. The contingency fund allows APHIS to
act rapidly to control emergencies before they can spread and
cause significant economic damage.
Cotton Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,390,000 for the cotton pests program.
Emerging Plant Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $159,300,000 for the emerging plant pests program. The
Committee expects the Secretary to make funds available from
the CCC for activities related to plant pests in fiscal year
2010, as necessary.
The Committee is concerned about the ever-increasing number
of nonnative plant pests and diseases discovered in the United
States. Significant Federal, State, and grower resources are
being spent on controlling these pests and diseases, such as
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease, Asian Citrus
Psyllid and Huanglongbing Disease, Light Brown Apple Moth, and
other plant pests. These pests pose a real threat to the long-
term economic viability of U.S. agriculture. The Committee
urges APHIS to address this issue and to undertake extremely
careful review of requests for importation from growing regions
that are home to pests or diseases that do not exist in the
United States so as not to add to the current pest and disease
crisis.
Asian Long Horned Beetle.--The Committee recommendation
includes $30,021,000 for Asian long horned beetle.
Citrus Health Response Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $45,687,000 for the citrus health
response program.
Emerald Ash Borer.--The Committee recommendation includes
$39,705,000 for emerald ash borer. This invasive species has
been found in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin,
and West Virginia. The Committee recognizes that the emerald
ash borer, which poses a significant threat to the Nation's
population of ash trees, has the potential to cause significant
economic and ecological damage, and that further efforts are
required to manage the spread of emerald ash borer and develop
techniques and technologies to eradicate this species.
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee recommendation
includes $22,983,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,151,000 for karnal bunt.
Light Brown Apple Moth.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,008,000 for Light Brown Apple Moth.
Miscellaneous Pests.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,102,000 for miscellaneous pests.
Potato Cyst Nematode.--The Committee recommendation
includes $8,327,000 for potato cyst nematode.
Sirex Woodwasp.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 for sirex woodwasp.
Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramora).--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,347,000 for sudden oak death. The
Committee encourages APHIS to use the funding provided to
promote the research, development, and testing of new systems
of nursery pest and disease management and for programs of
inspection and regulation.
Varroa Mite Suppression.--The Committee recommendation
includes $469,000 to suppress and limit the varroa mite
population on the Island of Oahu, and to prevent spread of the
mite to the neighboring islands. Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD]
has devastated bee keepers on mainland USA, and is severely
limiting the supply of bees to those commercial crops requiring
bee pollination. The Island of Hawaii (Big Island) is a major
supplier of queen bees to mainland bee keepers with the largest
supplier of queen bees in the United States located in Kona on
Big Island.
Grasshopper
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,078,000 for the grasshopper program.
Mormon Cricket.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for grasshopper and cricket survey and control
activities in the State of Nevada.
Gypsy Moth
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,170,000 for the gypsy moth program.
Gypsy Moth, New Jersey.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 to support and enhance gypsy moth control in
communities and public lands in the State of New Jersey.
Johne's Disease
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,876,000 for Johne's disease.
Noxious Weeds
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,790,000 for the noxious weeds program.
Cogongrass Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$208,000 for an invasive species program to prevent the spread
of cogongrass in Mississippi, and requests that the agency take
necessary steps to address this invasive weed as a regional
infestation problem.
Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.--The Committee recommendation
includes $176,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to
increase the availability and distribution of biological
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.
Noxious Weed Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $235,000 for a weed management program with the State
of Nevada to control invasive weeds on rangelands that threaten
the viability of Nevada's agricultural economy.
Tuberculosis
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,764,000 for the tuberculosis program.
Tuberculosis Transmission.--The Committee is concerned
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
agency to continue technical and operational assistance to
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee
recommendation includes $248,000 for bovine tuberculosis
eradication efforts in the State of Michigan.
Wildlife Services Operations
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $76,281,000 for wildlife services operations. The
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection,
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage,
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and
endangered species protection.
Animal Management and Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $496,000 for animal management and
control in the State of Mississippi. The Committee expects the
agency to make the fiscal year 2009 level of funding available
to all counties in the State. The Committee commends the
agency's assistance in cooperative relationships with local and
Federal partners to reduce animal damage to cropland and
forests.
Blackbird Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $265,000 to conduct methods development and continue
control measures for minimizing blackbird damage in North and
South Dakota. The Committee recommendation also includes
$94,000 for blackbird management activities in Louisiana.
Cooperative Livestock Protection Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $223,000 for the Cooperative Livestock
Protection Program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
provide technical and operational assistance in identifying,
controlling, and abating damage, animal health problems, and
economic losses caused by black vultures, Canadian geese,
European starlings, coyotes, and other wildlife.
Cormorant Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$465,000 for cormorant management and control, which includes
$139,000 for the State of Michigan, $103,000 for the Lake
Champlain basin, and $223,000 for Delta States' operations.
Integrated Predation Management Activities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $280,000 for integrated predation
management activities in the State of West Virginia.
Oral Rabies Vaccination.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,810,000 for rabies control activities. The
Committee expects a portion of the program increase to be
available for rabies activities in the Appalachian region and
to further progress already made along the Appalachian Ridge to
control this disease.
Tri-State Predator Control.--Due to the increase in
federally listed endangered species and the reintroduction of
wolf populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, State operation
accounts for wildlife services have suffered financially,
therefore the Committee recommendation includes $926,000 for
the tri-State predator control program in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming to respond to wolf depredation and monitor wolf
populations.
Wildlife Services, Hawaii.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,230,000 for Wildlife Service Operations in Hawaii.
These operations include support for the State office to
provide on-site coordination of prevention and control
activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific, support for a
permanent facility in Hilo for vertebrate pest control in
Hawaii and the Pacific Region, continued rodent control efforts
in active agricultural areas, prevention of the movement of
Brown Tree Snakes from Guam to Hawaii, efforts to control coqui
frog infestations, and other wildlife services activities.
Wildlife Services South Dakota.--The Committee
recommendation includes $519,000 for wildlife service
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory,
nuisance, and diseased animals.
ANIMAL CARE
Animal Welfare
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $21,979,000 for the animal care unit for enforcement
of the Animal Welfare Act.
Horse Welfare.--The Committee directs the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct an investigation on the
status of horse welfare in this country as it relates to the
cessation of horse slaughter operations. In particular, the
Committee believes that GAO should consider, at least, how the
horse industry has responded to the closure of U.S. horse
slaughter facilities in terms of both the numbers of horse
sales, exports, adoptions, or abandonments; the implications
these changes have had on farm income and trade; the extent to
which horses in the United States are slaughtered for any
purpose; any impacts to State and local governments and animal
protection organizations; how the Department oversees the
transport of horses destined for slaughter in foreign
countries, particularly Canada and Mexico; the manner in which
the Department coordinates with the Department of the Interior
and State governments to assist them in identifying, holding
and transporting unwanted horses for foreign export; and
general conclusions regarding the welfare of horses as a result
of a ban on horse slaughter for human consumption. The
Committee expects a report in this investigation by March 1,
2010.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $13,050,000 for biotechnology regulatory services.
Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee
recommendation includes $259,000 for a national institute at
Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation,
and communication for genetically modified agricultural
products.
Plant Methods Development Laboratories
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,949,000 for the Plant Methods Development
Laboratories Program.
Sericea Lespedeza.--Sericea lespedeza is an important field
crop in the southeastern United States. Sericea lespedeza also
poses environmental challenges to ecosystems in tall grass
prairie lands in the Great Plains region. APHIS is encouraged
to collaborate with conservation programs in the Great Plains
region where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species to find
economically and ecologically appropriate approaches.
Veterinary Diagnostics
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $26,073,000 for veterinary diagnostics, which includes
an increase of $1,657,000 for APHIS costs associated with the
agency's mission at the National Centers for Animal Health in
Ames, Iowa.
Agriculture Compliance Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $69,000 for the animal health
diagnostic laboratory in the State of Delaware.
Disease Prevention.--The Committee recommendation includes
$69,000 to develop diagnostics, treatment and prevention for
diseases, including West Nile Virus, infecting farm-raised
reptiles. Research has confirmed that reptiles are a major
vector for West Nile Virus, and the spread of this disease
appears to be escalating, posing a significant human health
risk and a great economic cost to the farming industry.
National Agriculture Biosecurity Center.--The Committee
recommendation includes $500,000 for the National Agriculture
Biosecurity Center in the State of Kansas to help protect
agricultural infrastructure and economy from endemic and
emerging biological threats.
Wildlife Services Methods Development
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $18,630,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Berryman Institute.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 to continue the existing program at the Jack
Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife damage management
issues, including wildlife disease threats and wildlife
economics.
National Wildlife Research Station, Texas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $290,000 for the National Wildlife
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with
wildlife populations and human health.
Predator Control.--The Committee understands that APHIS is
currently evaluating a theobromine and caffeine mixture as a
possible tool for predation management. The Committee also
understands that this mixture induces mortality with minimal
pre-mortality symptoms, and because theobromine and caffeine
are readily available, antidotes exist should it be
accidentally ingested by livestock or a pet. The Committee
encourages APHIS to continue evaluating this method, conduct
field studies, and take the appropriate steps to register these
compounds with the Environmental Protection Agency.
COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the program, project, and activity
section of this report.
The following is a list of congressionally designated
projects:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Program Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Veterinary $69,000
Equipment, Delaware Department of diagnostics.
Agriculture.
Animal management and control, Wildlife services 496,000
APHIS Mississippi. operations.
Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Wildlife services 1,500,000
Institute Utah and Mississippi methods develop-
Agriculture and Forestry ment.
Experiment Station.
Bio-safety and antibiotic Animal health 240,000
resistance, University of Vermont. monitoring and
surveillance.
Blackbird management, APHIS Wildlife services 94,000
Louisiana. operations.
Blackbird management, APHIS North Wildlife services 265,000
and South Dakota. operations.
Bovine tuberculosis eradication Tuberculosis........ 248,000
Michigan, Michigan Department of
Agriculture.
California county pest detection Pest detection...... 619,000
augmentation program, California
Department of Food and
Agriculture.
California county pest detection Pest detection...... 738,000
import inspection program,
California Department of Food and
Agriculture.
Cogongrass control, Mississippi Noxious weeds....... 208,000
Department of Agriculture.
Cooperative livestock protection Wildlife services 223,000
program, APHIS Pennsylvania and operations.
Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture.
Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan. Wildlife services 139,000
operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS Wildlife services 223,000
Mississippi. operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont Wildlife services 103,000
and Vermont Fish and Wildlife operations.
Department.
Disease prevention, Louisiana Veterinary 69,000
Department of Wildlife and diagnostics.
Fisheries.
Disease surveillance in North Animal health 700,000
Dakota, North Dakota State monitoring and
University and Dickinson State surveillance.
University.
Genetically modified products, Biotechnology 259,000
Iowa State University. regulatory services.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis......... 650,000
Brucellosis Committee, Idaho
Department of Agriculture,
Montana Department of Livestock,
Wyoming Livestock Board.
Gypsy moth, New Jersey, New Jersey Gypsy moth.......... 250,000
Department of Agriculture.
Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii.... Agricultural 3,000,000
quarantine
inspection.
Hawaii wildlife services Wildlife services 2,230,000
activities, APHIS Hawaii. operations.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, Biological control.. 500,000
University of Tennessee.
Integrated predation management Wildlife services 280,000
activities, APHIS West Virginia. operations.
Invasive aquatic species, Lake Aquaculture......... 94,000
Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Management Cooperative, Vermont.
Mormon cricket Nevada, APHIS Grasshopper......... 1,000,000
Nevada.
National Agriculture Biosecurity Veterinary 500,000
Center, Kansas State Univers- diagnostics.
ity.
National farm animal Animal health 343,000
identification and records, monitoring and
Holstein Association. surveillance.
National Wildlife Research Wildlife services 290,000
Station, Texas A&M. methods develop-
ment.
New Mexico rapid syndrome Animal health 404,000
validation program, New Mexico monitoring and
State University. surveillance.
Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Noxious weeds....... 176,000
Perce Tribe.
Noxious weed management, Nevada Noxious weeds....... 235,000
Department of Agriculture.
Tri-State predator control, APHIS Wildlife services 926,000
Idaho, Montana, and Wyo- ming. operations.
Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Emerging plant pests 469,000
Hawaii.
Wildlife Services South Dakota, Wildlife services 519,000
South Dakota Department of Game, operations.
Fish, and Parks.
---------------
TOTAL, Animal and Plant .................... 18,059,000
Health Inspection Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $4,712,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 4,712,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,712,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$4,712,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow
APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically
needed repairs to and replacements of building components, such
as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized
basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the
environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities,
closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to
complete the required repairs.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $86,711,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 90,848,000
Committee recommendation................................ 90,848,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C.
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market
protection and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,848,000
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Local Purchase.--The Committee is aware that the Iowa Buy
Fresh/Buy Local works with communities to implement plans to
create more local commerce around locally grown foods,
including working with institutional food buyers to develop
strong linkages to local farmers and processors. The Committee
encourages AMS to provide technical and financial assistance,
as appropriate, to this program.
Organics.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,667,000
for the National Organic Program [NOP]. The Committee
encourages the agency to fund independent and comprehensive
scientific reviews of substances and materials proposed for use
in organic agriculture, prior to their consideration by the
National Organic Standards Board, as required by the Organic
Foods Production Act [OFPA]. The Committee further encourages
the agency to finalize the pending pasture rule for organic
livestock and initiate rulemaking to address the issue of the
origin of livestock. Finally, the Committee expects the NOP to
move forward with respect to Peer Review Panel requirements of
the OFPA and USDA's organic regulations.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2009........................................ $62,888,000
Budget limitation, 2010................................. 64,583,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,583,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $64,583,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $17,270,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 20,056,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,056,000
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2008-2010:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010
actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $7,563,683,777 $7,979,334,788 $8,061,101,371
Rescission................................................ -684,000,000 -293,530,000 -43,000,000
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -6,253,548,000 -6,455,802,000 -6,747,877,000
Commerce Department................................... -84,594,777 -108,510,788 -114,224,371
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -6,338,142,777 -6,564,312,788 -6,862,101,371
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 541,541,000 1,121,492,000 1,156,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year.............. 500,000,000 293,529,985 343,491,985
Offsetting Collections.................................... 53,516,377 ................ ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................... 11,861 ................ ................
Available for Obligation.................................. 1,095,069,238 1,415,021,985 1,499,491,985
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities).... 464,937,227 465,000,000 465,000,000
12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement................ ................ ................ 176,000,000
Accounting Adjustment................................. 2,750,442 ................ ................
State Option Contract................................. 174,201 ................ 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities...................... 49,914,151 2,500,000 2,500,000
Emergency Surplus Removal............................. 53,653,928 279,167,505 ................
Direct Payments....................................... ................ 750,000 ................
Disaster Relief....................................... 1,722,264 5,000,000 5,000,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases..... 180,777,638 119,500,000 199,000,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program..................... ................ 108,000,000 101,000,000
Whole Grain Products Study [FSA]...................... ................ 4,000,000 ................
Estimated Future Needs................................ ................ 38,261,495 193,108,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement........................ 753,929,851 1,022,179,000 1,146,608,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support............................ 32,594,780 22,081,000 22,336,000
WebSCM--Additional Funding............................ ................ 10,000,000 10,000,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders....................... 15,014,622 17,270,000 20,056,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds......................... 47,609,402 49,351,000 52,392,000
=====================================================
Total, Obligations.................................. 801,539,253 1,071,530,000 1,199,000,000
=====================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................ 293,529,985 343,491,985 300,491,985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $20,056,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $1,334,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,334,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,334,000 for
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $40,342,000
Budget estimate, 2010.......................... 41,964,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,564,000
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 (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) 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 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,564,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration. The Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $500,000 for enforcement of the Packers
and Stockyards Act.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2009........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2010................................. 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $42,463,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $613,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 813,000
Committee recommendation................................ 813,000
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 processed egg products. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $813,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $971,566,000
Budget estimate, 2010.......................... 1,018,520,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,018,520,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,018,520,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$3,884,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex
office including international outreach and education.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee continues to include
$3,000,000, as requested in the budget, for maintenance of the
Humane Animal Tracking System. Further, the Committee notes
that the budget request will maintain no less than 150 full-
time equivalent positions which have been provided solely for
humane slaughter enforcement. The Committee is pleased that
FSIS is currently hiring additional Public Health Veterinarians
and Consumer Safety Inspectors to be located at Federally
inspected plants who slaughter a high number of cull cattle,
and directs FSIS to report on this hiring activity.
The Committee has previously encouraged FSIS to consider a
number of objective scoring techniques to measure more
precisely the extent to and the occasions in which regulatory
actions may be appropriate, including means by which FSIS
personnel can actually document improvements or failures in
animal handling and slaughter operations. These scoring
techniques may include, but not be limited to, overall facility
ratings in regard to layout, a systematic approach to
monitoring HMSA requirements, or other means to establish an
objective measure of operational performance. The Committee
directs FSIS to provide a report on the potential for these
actions.
Poultry Imports.--With respect to imports of processed
poultry products, the Committee has concerns that the People's
Republic of China may not have in place the tracing mechanisms
required to guarantee that only eligible raw material is used
in further processing, that raw inputs or final products
destined for the United States market are not commingled with
ineligible inputs or products, or that the end product is
sufficiently cooked so that all pathogens have been killed. The
Committee believes that standards relating to food safety
(including the safety of imported products) must be based on a
strong scientific basis. Accordingly, the Committee recommends
a general provision requiring special measures by the Secretary
to guarantee food safety for United States consumers relating
to poultry products from China including enhanced audit
systems, port of entry inspections, and the establishment of an
information system relating to audits and plant inspections.
State Meat Inspection.--The Committee notes that USDA is
promulgating regulations regarding interstate shipment of meat
and poultry from eligible State-inspected plants, in accordance
with Public Law 110-246. The Committee further notes that the
Final Rule is expected to be published by December 2009 and
strongly encourages USDA to collaborate with State agencies, as
appropriate, on this effort.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2010 budget Committee
2009 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety Inspection:
Federal..................................................... 871,150 903,067 903,067
State....................................................... 64,703 65,654 65,654
International............................................... 18,916 19,445 19,445
Codex Alimentarius.......................................... 3,827 3,884 3,884
PHDCIS...................................................... 12,970 26,470 26,470
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 971,566 1,018,520 1,018,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $646,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
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 (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Food Aid Quality.--The Committee expects that commodities
procured by USDA and provided for the purpose of international
humanitarian food assistance meet adequate levels of quality
assurance to fully comply with program requirements. Toward
that goal, the Department has conducted an initial assessment
of food aid quality systems and the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 authorized the Secretary to use Food for
Peace title II funds to implement food quality assurance
measures. The Committee encourages the Secretary to move
forward with the development and implementation of quality
systems improvements, such as those identified through the
initial assessment, and to utilize existing authorities to
improve the quality, shelf life, bioavailability, and safety of
food aid commodities and products procured by the Department.
Additionally, the Secretary is directed to conduct an
assessment to evaluate the most cost-effective and practical
means to assure the safety and quality of food assistance
products procured through local and regional purchase
authorities. The Committee expects the USAID Administrator to
cooperate with such assessment by providing data on food
assistance products (types, quantities, cost, etc.) procured
locally and regionally through the Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance, PEPFAR and other relevant authorities, and the
requirements and systems in place to assure the quality and
safety of such products.
The Committee expects a report on the activities under this
heading.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries, and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009\1\...................................... 1,220,273 312,487 1,532,760
Budget estimate, 2010........................................ 1,253,777 321,340 1,575,117
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,253,777 316,340 1,570,117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $50,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency,
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Food for Peace loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
The Committee, again, fully funds the information
technology [IT] needs requested in the President's budget
proposal. The Committee remains aware of the unstable status of
the Farm Service Agency computer system which is responsible
for the calculation and tracking of the agency's payments to
agricultural producers, and which has resulted in disruption of
services to U.S. farmers and ranchers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,570,117,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high resolution
satellite imagery data or products to meet programmatic
requirements. The acquisition of high resolution satellite
imagery will also encourage the development of second
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century
technological innovation.
The Committee recognizes the potential for substantial
overlap between the National Agriculture Imagery Program [NAIP]
and the Commerce Department's responsibilities to map broadband
accessibility in rural areas, as required by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). High
resolution imagery will be the foundation of an effective
broadband mapping system and the Committee is concerned that
these two initiatives not duplicate efforts. NAIP has a
demonstrated history with USDA of delivering effective results
at acceptable costs. The Committee directs the Secretary to
engage the Secretary of Commerce in discussions concerning
utilizing the established NAIP program, through reimbursable
agreements, to help address broadband mapping requirements of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Committee also
encourages the Secretary to pursue reimbursable agreements with
other agencies and Departments that benefit from NAIP services.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $4,369,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 4,369,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,369,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
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
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. Grants are made
to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the
FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of
the State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
This program is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $1,700,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................ 930,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 930,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2010 to be $930,000,
for repayment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for
net realized losses.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm
operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Individual Development grant accounts.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) 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.
Conservation Loans.--Made to farmers, ranchers, and other
entities controlled by farmers and ranchers and primarily
engaged in agricultural production. Direct and guaranteed loans
may be used for conservation projects that support a USDA-
approved conservation plan. Guarantees cover 75 percent of the
principal loan amount.
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.--Made to Indian
tribal members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as
authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development
Grants.--Made to beginning farmers and ranchers who lack
significant assets and have incomes below either 80 percent of
the State's median income, or 200 percent of the State's
poverty income level. Grants provide for matching-funds savings
accounts to be used for specified farming-related expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$4,149,457,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2009 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2009 enacted 2010 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................... 222,298 392,990 392,990
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-32................. 360,000 ............... ...............
Guaranteed............................................... 1,238,768 1,500,000 1,500,000
Farm Operating:
Direct................................................... 575,095 700,000 700,000
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-5.................. 173,367 ............... ...............
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-32................. 400,000 ............... ...............
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,017,497 1,150,000 1,150,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized, as provided in Public Law 111- 50,201 ............... ...............
32......................................................
Guaranteed subsidized.................................... 269,986 144,467 144,467
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition................................ 3,940 2,000 2,000
Conservation Loans:
Direct................................................... ............... 75,000 75,000
Guaranteed............................................... ............... 75,000 75,000
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans........................ ............... 10,000 10,000
Boll Weevil Eradication...................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm loans (excluding Public Law 111-5 and 3,427,584 4,109,457 4,149,457
Public Law 111-32)....................................
==================================================
Total, Farm loans, as provided by Public Law 111-5 and 983,568 ............... ...............
Public Law 111-32.....................................
==================================================
Total, Farm loans...................................... 4,411,152 4,109,457 4,149,457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
---------------------------------- --------------------------- Total
Direct Guaranteed Grants Transfer ACIF
loan loan Total Appropriations to FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009\1\...... 171,227 67,905 239,132 ......... 317,323 309,403 556,455
Budget estimate, 2010........ 51,072 53,050 104,122 5,000 326,093 318,173 435,215
Committee recommendation..... 51,072 53,050 104,122 ......... 321,093 313,173 425,215
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $91,710,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5 and Public Law 111-32.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of programs under
credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2009 enacted 2010 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 12,715 16,034 16,034
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-32............. 22,860 ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... 4,088 5,550 5,550
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 67,804 33,180 33,180
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-5.............. 20,440 ............... ...............
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-32............. 47,160 ............... ...............
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 25,336 26,910 26,910
Guaranteed unsubsidized, as provided in Public Law 1,250 ............... ...............
111-32..............................................
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 37,231 20,312 20,312
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition............................ 248 ............... ...............
Conservation Loans:
Direct............................................... ............... 1,065 1,065
Guaranteed........................................... ............... 278 278
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.................... ............... 793 793
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies, excluding Public Law 111-5 and 147,422 104,122 104,122
Public Law 111-32.....................................
==================================================
Total loan subsidies provided by Public Law 111-5 and 91,710 ............... ...............
Public Law 111-32.....................................
==================================================
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 239,132 104,122 104,122
==================================================
Individual Development Accounts.............................. ............... 5,000 ...............
ACIF expenses................................................ 317,323 326,093 321,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $77,177,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 80,325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 79,425,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $79,425,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $6,582,945,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................ 7,502,601,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 7,502,601,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $7,502,601,000 for the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $11,106,324,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................ 13,878,054,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 13,878,054,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2010 to be
$13,878,054,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2009........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the
Commodity Credit Corporation's hazardous waste management
program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $758,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of
Maine. This project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat
in the Penobscot watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and
six other species of sea-run fish and 100 percent of the
historic habitat in Maine's largest river system for four
additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve
migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the
purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to passage, by
utilizing all appropriate funding sources.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources,
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $853,400,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 867,197,000
Committee recommendation................................ 949,577,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $949,577,000
for Conservation Operations. The recommendation includes the
following: $9,930,000 for Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative; $93,939,000 for Soil Surveys; $10,965,000 for Snow
Survey and Water Forecasting; $11,088,000 for Plant Materials
Centers; $751,214,000 for conservation technical assistance;
$21,711,000 for congressionally directed spending; and
$50,730,000 for RC&D's.
National Geospatial Development Center.--The Committee
encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National
Geospatial Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Resource Conservation and Development.--The Committee
includes funding within the appropriation for Conservation
Operations to support the Resource Conservation and Development
[RC&D] program. The agency may use up to $50,730,000, the
amount available in fiscal year 2009, to continue this program.
If the Secretary chooses to provide funding for this program,
the Committee expects the agency to fund meritorious RC&D
councils with a proven track record in promoting conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources. Further, the
Committee expects a report on the allocation of these funds
including: the RC&D council receiving funds, the amount
provided, and what activities the council will undertake.
For fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE--CONSERVATION OPERATIONS--
CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey (WY).................... 200
Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation (HI). 1,400
Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center (MS).......... 939
Appropriate Wetland and Wet-Mesic Species (IA).......... 134
CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Association (IA)................ 288
Center for Invasive Species Eradication (TX)............ 1,000
Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative (LA)............ 500
Conservation Fuels Management and Restoration (NV)...... 269
Conservation Internships (WI)........................... 120
Conservation Technical Assistance in New Jersey......... 236
Conservation Technical Assistance in Tennessee.......... 1,000
Conservation Technology Transfer (WI)................... 516
Delta Conservation Demonstration (MS)................... 376
Delta Water Study (MS).................................. 235
Farm Viability Program (VT)............................. 300
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission 800
Cooperative Agreement (GA).............................
Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education 300
Watershed Project (TX).................................
Grazing Land Conservation (WI).......................... 732
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment 404
Control................................................
Great Plain Riparian Initiative (NE).................... 500
Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity 100
Project (KY)...........................................
Hungry Canyons Alliance (IA)............................ 282
Illinois Conservation Initiative (IL)................... 576
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control........................... 724
Mississippi Conservation Initiative..................... 2,000
Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient 150
Irrigation (CA)........................................
Nitrate Pollution Reduction (RI)........................ 155
Operation Oak Program................................... 100
Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain (VT).............. 179
Phosphorous Reduction Cooperative Agreement (KS)........ 1,000
Potomac River Tributary (WV)............................ 168
Riparian Restoration (NM)............................... 200
Risk Management Initiative (WV)......................... 673
Soil Phosphorus Studies (WV)............................ 202
Soil Survey (RI)........................................ 134
Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil 545
Conservation Districts.................................
UMASS--Amherst Ecological Conservation Initiative (MA).. 140
Utah Conservation Initiative............................ 2,500
Watershed Demonstration Project (IA).................... 134
Watershed Planning Staff (HI)........................... 500
Yankee Tank Dam (KS).................................... 1,000
---------------
Total, Conservation Operations.................... 21,711
------------------------------------------------------------------------
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $314,289,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 24,394,000
\1\Includes $290,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,394,000
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. The Committee
encourages NRCS to fund the highest ranked projects identified
in State priority lists and work to complete the final phase of
multi-purpose structures.
The following is a list of congressionally designated
projects:
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE--WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION
OPERATIONS--CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Valley Flood Control (UT)........................ 300
Dry Creek Watershed (CA)................................ 500
Dunloup Creek (WV)...................................... 1,500
DuPage County Watershed (IL)............................ 1,000
Lahaina Watershed (HI).................................. 1,000
Lost River (WV)......................................... 4,000
Lower Hamakua (HI)...................................... 1,800
Missouri Watershed projects (MO)........................ 2,000
Pocasset River (RI)..................................... 2,000
Upcountry Maui (HI)..................................... 2,000
Upper Clark Fork Watershed (MT)......................... 200
Wailuku-Alenaio (HI).................................... 250
---------------
Total, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.. 16,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 40,161,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,161,000
\1\Includes $50,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2803 of Public Law 110-246.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,161,000
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $50,730,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to
help develop local programs of land conservation and
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to
individual operators for establishing soil and water
conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides funding for Resource Conservation
and Development within the appropriation for Conservation
Operations.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business--Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $646,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 895,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 2010 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 192,484 195,987 207,237
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 460,217 468,593 468,593
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program 39,245 39,959 39,959
Account.................................................
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.............. 4,853 4,941 4,941
--------------------------------------------------
Total RD salaries and expenses......................... 696,799 709,480 720,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business--Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $720,730,000 for salaries and
expenses of Rural Development. Rural Development's
administrative support, particularly in the area of information
technology, has not kept pace with the explosive growth in its
portfolio. The Committee is providing additional funds to
ensure that as Rural Development's responsibilities expand into
new spheres, including renewable energy, Rural Development has
adequate resources to handle the tasks.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the
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.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2009 (budget authority)\1\.............. $861,168,000
Budget estimate, 2010 (budget authority)................ 624,325,000
Committee recommendation (budget authority)............. 711,313,000
\1\Includes $200,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), 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 terms up to 30 years. Loan programs are
limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $711,313,000
for the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF].
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the RHIF 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 2010, as well as for administrative expenses. The
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to
the 2009 levels and the 2010 budget request:
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2009 2010 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Levels:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct, excluding Public Law 111-5................... 1,121,488 1,121,488 1,226,501
Direct, as provided in Public Law 111-5.............. 1,000,000 ............... ...............
Guaranteed, excluding Public Law 111-5............... 6,223,859 6,204,444 12,000,000
Guaranteed, as provided by Public Law 111-5.......... 10,472,000 ............... ...............
Housing Repair (sec. 504)................................ 34,410 34,412 34,412
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 69,512 69,512 69,512
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538)..................... 129,090 129,090 129,090
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... 5,045 5,045 5,045
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 11,447 11,448 11,448
Self help land development loans (sec. 523).............. 4,970 4,970 4,970
--------------------------------------------------
Total loan levels, excluding Public Law 111-5.......... 7,599,821 7,580,409 13,480,978
==================================================
Total loan levels, provided by Public Law 111-5........ 11,472,000 ............... ...............
==================================================
Total, loan levels..................................... 19,071,821 7,580,409 13,480,978
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct, excluding Public Law 111-5................... 75,364 40,710 44,522
Direct, as provided by Public Law 111-5.............. 67,000 ............... ...............
Guaranteed, excluding Public Law 111-5............... 79,043 89,624 172,800
Guaranteed, as provided by Public Law 111-5.......... 133,000 ............... ...............
Housing Repair (sec. 504)................................ 9,246 4,422 4,422
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 28,611 18,935 18,935
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538)..................... 8,082 1,485 1,485
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... ............... ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 523 556 556
Self help land development loans (sec. 523).............. 82 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total loan subsidies, excluding Public Law 111-5....... 200,951 155,732 242,720
--------------------------------------------------
Total loan subsidies as provided by Public Law 111-5... 200,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 400,951 155,732 242,720
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 460,217 468,593 468,593
==================================================
Total, loan subidies and administrative expenses....... 861,168 624,325 711,313
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $902,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,091,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 980,000,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over-
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,000,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The
Committee includes statutory language requiring rental
assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period
of time.
Rental assistance contracts are, again, funded for 1 year
durations. One year contract durations will enable the
Department to provide more accurate estimates of contract cost
increases and the number of contracts expiring and requiring
renewal. The funding increase recommended over fiscal year 2009
is due to the increase in contracts requiring renewal.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $27,714,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 26,616,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,651,000
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes
funding for housing vouchers, a multi-family revolving loan
program, and a program for the preservation and revitalization
of affordable multi-family housing projects. Rural
Development's multi-family housing portfolio faces dual
pressures for loan prepayments and repair/rehabilitation
stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in deferred
property maintenance.
Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather
than funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing
Revitalization Program includes revitalization tools for
maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect tenants
in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided to allow
Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers and the two
programs to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant
protection and project revitalization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,651,000
for the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including
$18,000,000 for vouchers, $1,791,000 for revolving loan funds,
and $19,860,000 for a housing preservation demonstration
program.
The Committee is aware of the large and growing demand for
housing vouchers to protect multi-family housing residents from
substantial rent increases if owners pre-pay their loans and
leave the multi-family housing program. Sufficient funding is
provided for expiring vouchers and new vouchers anticipated to
be issued in fiscal year 2010.
When originated this pilot was envisioned to provide
limited, transitional assistance to aid tenants in obtaining
alternative living arrangements with affordable rents. However,
as it is being operated the Department is silent to tenants
regarding program duration, leaving the impression that voucher
assistance will be provided indefinitely. Unless revised,
funding needs for vouchers will grow without limits to
unacceptable and unsustainable levels. The Committee directs
the Secretary to review experiences and lessons learned under
this pilot, and propose a program that is limited in duration
and transitional in nature.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $38,727,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 38,727,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,727,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is
authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are
made to local organizations to promote the development of
mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6 to
10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor.
Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors
who will work with families in the construction of their homes
and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing
the self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
The Committee is concerned that the Rural Housing Service
does not have a permanent contract in place for technical
assistance for the Mutual and Self Help Housing program, which
is an important element in the agency's affordable housing
efforts. The Committee understands that the original
solicitation for a contract was issued in October 2007. A
subsequent solicitation was then published in February 2009.
Despite over 16 months of applications, evaluations, and
internal deliberations there is still no agreement in place for
self help technical assistance. The Committee directs the Rural
Housing Service to submit a status report on the self help
technical assistance contract within 30 days of enactment of
this act.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $41,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 41,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,500,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor
financial assistance to applicant needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,500,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2009 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 31,600 31,600 31,600
Compensation for construction defects........................ 500 500 500
Housing preservation grants.................................. 9,400 9,400 9,400
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 41,500 41,500 41,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $18,269,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 16,968,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,968,000
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.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,968,000
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
The following table compares the loan and grant levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2009 levels and
the budget request:
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2009 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan level............................................ 21,678 21,677 21,677
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 9,135 7,834 7,834
Grants....................................................... 9,134 9,134 9,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2009\1\.................................. $193,830,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 54,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 54,993,000
\1\Includes $130,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasi-public 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,
healthcare, 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. Healthcare and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,993,000
for the Rural Community Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2009 2010 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community facility direct loans\1\............................. 83,871 3,864 3,864
Community facility guaranteed loans............................ 6,358 6,626 6,626
Community facility grants\2\................................... 83,373 20,373 20,373
Economic impact initiative grants.............................. 10,000 13,902 13,902
Rural community development initiative......................... 6,256 6,256 6,256
Tribal college grants.......................................... 3,972 3,972 3,972
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 193,830 54,993 54,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $67,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
\2\Includes $63,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
Consideration to Applications.--Community Facilities loans
and grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge,
or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health
care, public safety and other essential public services. The
Committee has been made aware of and encourages the Department
to give consideration to applications relating to essential
community facilities for the following: Administrative and
Judicial Complex (New Mexico); Bethel Public Safety Building
(Alaska); City of Cordova Gas utility (Alaska); City of Craig
Community Association Waste Boiler Tie-In (Alaska); City of
Munising Fire/Police Building (Michigan); City of Sault Sainte
Marie--Ashmun Bay Boat Access and Channel Project (Michigan);
Community Center Rehabilitation Project (Michigan); Community
Center/EMS & Fire Facility (Florida); Cordova Center (Alaska);
Fire Station Renovations, Town of Haynesville (Louisiana);
Kekaha Siphons and Flumes Repair (Hawaii); Keweenaw National
Historic Park-Village of Calumet Theater Building (Michigan);
Kohala Irrigation System Repair (Hawaii); Lewbowski Theater
Rebuilding Project (Michigan); Louisiana Tech University Rural
Development Center (Louisiana); Luce County Community Center
(Michigan); Mid-Ohio Foodbank (Ohio); Mora County Complex (New
Mexico); Multi-Use Facility (New Mexico); Pepekeo Community
Hydroelectric Generation (Hawaii); Public Safety Building
(Alaska); Seaside School District Relocation (Oregon); Siena
Heights University Community Center (Michigan); Slaughter and
Processing Facilities Planning and Design (Hawaii); The
Greening of the Upper Peninsula Children's Museum (Michigan);
Torrance County Community Facilities (New Mexico); Traditional
Ceremonial Facility (New Mexico); and YMCA Facility Renovation,
Bogalusa (Louisiana).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business--Cooperative Service is
to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2009\1\.................................. $237,385,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 97,116,000
Committee recommendation................................ 97,116,000
\1\Includes $150,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The Rural Business and Industry Loan 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 (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) 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.
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 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $97,116,000
for the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget
request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2009 2009 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and industry guaranteed loans\1\...................... 173,196 52,927 52,927
Business enterprise grants\2\.................................. 58,727 38,727 38,727
Business opportunity grants.................................... 2,483 2,483 2,483
Delta Regional Authority grants................................ 2,979 2,979 2,979
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 237,385 97,116 97,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $130,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
\2\Includes $20,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian
and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and
assistance initiative.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,536 33,536 33,536
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 14,035 8,464 8,464
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,853 4,941 4,941
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses...... 18,870 13,405 13,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2009, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,405,000
for the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,077 33,077 33,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Economic Development Loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credits payment program and created
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural
economic development and job creation projects, including
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a loan program level of
$33,077,000, to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of
Credit and fees on guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant
to section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $12,636,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 38,636,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,854,000
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 of 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, except 1994
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection
criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,854,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $2,800,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $3,463,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $21,867,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants.
RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,000,000
This program, authorized by section 379E of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et
seq.), provides micro-entrepreneurs with the skills necessary
to establish new rural microenterprises, as well as support
these types of businesses with technical and financial
assistance. The program provides loans and grants to
intermediaries that assist micro-entrepreneurs. The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes available $4,000,000
of mandatory funding for fiscal year 2010.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,000,000
for the Rural Microenterprise Investment Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels:
RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ .............. 51,522 51,522
Loan subsidy.................................................... .............. 11,000 11,000
Grants.......................................................... .............. 11,000 11,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $8,130,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for Rural
Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Community Grants due to the
expiration of the authorization of these entities.
Rural Energy for America Program
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 68,130,000
Committee recommendation................................ 68,130,000
The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under
section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits,
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $68,130,000
for the Rural Energy for America Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels:
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ 28,380 246,334 246,334
Guaranteed loan subsidy......................................... 2,750 33,600 33,600
Grants.......................................................... 2,250 34,530 34,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $17,339,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,339,000
The Biorefinery Assistance Program is authorized under
section 9003 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Under this program assistance is provided to aid in the
development of new and emerging technologies for expanding
production of advanced biofuels. Grants are available for
development and construction of demonstration-scale
biorefineries and guaranteed loans are available for
development, construction or retrofitting commercial-scale
biorefineries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,339,000
for the Biorefinery Assistance Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels:
BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ .............. 48,884 48,884
Guaranteed loan subsidy......................................... .............. 17,339 17,339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to Applications: Rural Business and Renewable
Energy Programs.--The Committee has been made aware of and
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business and renewable energy programs for the
following: Arkansas Virtual Enterprise Center (Arkansas);
Biofuel Supply Chain Development (Wisconsin); Connect ME
(Maine); Fort Belknap Buffalo Program (Montana); Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community Commer Stamp Sand Reuse Project (Michigan);
Matanuska Susitna Borough Agricultural Food Processing and
Product Development Center (Alaska); Mentoring and Community
Agriculture Initiative (Vermont); Montana Food and Agriculture
Innovation Center Action Plan (Montana); Nevada Wool Growers
(Nevada); Rural Business Energizer Program (Maine); Rural
Enterprises of Oklahoma (Oklahoma); Rural Entrepreneurs
Revitalization Fund (Michigan); San Joaquin County Agricultural
Center Solar Project (California); and Scottsboro Electric
Economic Development (Alabama).
In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to
consider applications for grants to rural public television
broadcasting systems.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
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 WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2009\1\.................................. $1,936,268,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 546,230,000
Committee recommendation................................ 568,730,000
\1\Includes $1,380,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $568,730,000
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Homelands.
The Committee recognizes the special needs and problems for
delivery of basic services to these populations. The Secretary
is directed to provide a report to the Committee that
identifies the specific areas in which water and waste disposal
program resources have been provided, where additional
resources are most needed, and the relative costs of program
delivery to the various areas and regions covered by the
authorities identified for use of these specific funds. The
Committee expects from the Secretary a spending plan of how the
funds will be used, quarterly notification on grant
obligations, and a year end summary report. In addition, the
Committee makes up to $14,000,000 available for the circuit
rider program.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget
request levels:
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009 2010 budget Committee
appropriation\1\ request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not specified............................................ 538,768 ................ ................
Water and waste disposal direct loans\2\................. 412,000 77,071 77,071
Water and waste disposal grants\3\....................... 968,000 464,228 469,228
Solid waste management grants............................ ................. 3,441 3,441
Water well system grants................................. ................. 993 993
Water and waste water revolving funds.................... ................. 497 497
High energy cost grants.................................. 17,500 ................ 17,500
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 1,936,268 546,230 568,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In fiscal year 2009, the Committee did not specify the distribution of funding among water and waste disposal
loans and grants.
\2\$412,000,000 provided in Public Law 111-5.
\3\$968,000,000 provided in Public Law 111-5.
Consideration to Applications.--Water and Waste Disposal
loans and grants provide financial support and technical
assistance for development and operation of safe and affordable
water supply systems and waste disposal facilities. Funds may
be used to construct, repair, expand or otherwise improve water
supply and distribution, and waste collection and treatment
systems. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to consider applications for water and waste
disposal loans and grants for the following projects: 76th
Street Sanitary Sewer Force Main Relocation (Michigan);
Aberdeen Water Treatment Plant and Wellfield Project (Ohio);
Akiachak Solid Waste Facility (Alaska); Benton County
Fairgrounds Waste Water Collection and Drainage Project
(Oregon); Blaine Water Reclamation Facility (Washington); Blue
River Hills Improvement District (Kansas); Buena Vista
Wastewater Improvement Project (Michigan); Cathlamet Water
Treatment Plant (Washington); City of Eagle Point Reservoir
Retrofit (Oregon); City of LaBelle Water Treatment Plant
(Florida); County of Coloma Water Tower Replacement (Michigan);
Elk County Rural Water District #2 (Kansas); Expanded Solid
Waste Transfer Station (Florida); Fayetteville Water Authority
(Alabama); Ferriday Town Water System (Louisiana); Green River
Pumping Project (Utah); Griffith Spring Collection Box and
Building Replacement (New Mexico); Hubbard Creek Impoundment
Improvement Project (Oregon); Imperial Keystone Regional Water
Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System
(California); Kane County Water Improvement Initiative (Utah);
Kettle Falls Water Treatment Facility (Washington); Lake County
Kelseyville Wastewater System (California); Lawtey Wastewater
Collection Facilities and Equipment Project-Phase II (Florida);
New Holland Water Tower Replacement (Ohio); Old Highway 62/
Royal Avenue Water Main Replacement (Oregon); Ozark Mountain
Regional Public Water Authority (Arkansas); Partridge Creek
Diversion (Michigan); San Luis Obispo County Los Osos
Wastewater Project (California); Spalding Sewer Lift Station
(Oregon); Sutter County Regional Wastewater Project
(California); Town of Repton (Alabama); Tulare Rural Community
Water Systems (California); Village of Blanchester (Ohio);
Village of Spencer (Ohio); Washoe Tribe (Nevada); Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Florida); and Willapa Regional Wastewater
Facility (Washington).
Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.--
The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide
support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through
the water and waste technical assistance and training grant
program.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
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 fiscal year 2010, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000
Direct FFB........................................... 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
Guaranteed underwriting.............................. ............... ............... 500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 6,600,000 6,600,000 7,100,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent........................................ 145,000 145,000 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate.................................... 250,000 250,000 250,000
Direct, FFB.............................................. 295,000 295,000 295,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 690,000 690,000 690,000
==================================================
Total, loan authorizations............................. 7,290,000 7,290,000 7,790,000
==================================================
Loan subsidies:
Telecommunications:
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 525 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 525 ............... ...............
==================================================
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 525 ............... ...............
Administrative expenses...................................... 39,245 39,959 39,959
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 39,770 39,959 39,959
Loans Programs Account................................
(Loan authorization)............................... 7,290,000 7,290,000 7,790,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Utilities Service, Electric Programs, is directed
to develop loan security procedures and instruments for
renewable energy loans that distinguishes the differences
between privately developed project financing and system
financing as is traditionally used with rural electric
cooperatives.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 level 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Grants............................................... 34,755 29,790 37,755
Broadband program, excluding Public Law 111-5:
Treasury rate loans...................................... 400,487 531,699 531,699
Treasury rate loans budget authority..................... 15,619 38,495 38,495
Grants................................................... 13,406 13,406 13,406
--------------------------------------------------
Total broadband budget authority, excluding Public Law 63,780 81,691 89,656
111-5.................................................
==================================================
Total broadband program level, excluding Public Law 111- 448,648 574,895 582,860
5.....................................................
==================================================
Budget authority, provided by Public Law 111-5............... 2,500,000 ............... ...............
Budget authority, from all sources........................... 2,563,780 81,691 89,656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $89,656,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,965,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet
health needs in the Mississippi Delta. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical health
care needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
The Committee continues its support for extending high
speed broadband service to the most remote, un-served areas of
rural America. Substantial funds have been made available in
annual appropriations bills, and $2,500,000,000 was provided to
USDA for this purpose in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 [ARRA]. The Committee recognizes that reaching the
most remote and un-served areas requires substantial Government
investment, and recommends full funding of the President's
budget request for continued investment. However, the Committee
insists that USDA should utilize these funds effectively and
directs the Secretary to include in the quarterly spending
plans and obligations reports required by ARRA comparable
information on the use of annual appropriations funding.
Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended,
$13,406,000 in grants shall be made available to support
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for
rural areas.
Consideration to Applications--Broadband and Distance
Learning, Telemedicine Loans, and Grants.--The Committee has
been made aware of and encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for broadband and distance
learning, telemedicine loans and grants for the following:
Batavia, New York Rural Broadband Expansion Plan 2009 (New
York); Creating Connectivity Across Nez Perce Lands (Idaho);
East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network (Vermont); Eastern
Shore Broadband Buildout (Virginia); Expanding Home Telehealth
for the Aging Population in New York State (New York); Humboldt
County Redundant Broadband Link (California); Jamestown, NY to
Whitesville, NY Fiber Build (New York); Open Access Fiber Optic
Broadband Deployment on the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula
(Virginia); Otsego County Telecommunications Open Access Model
(New York); Project Bluebird (Virginia); Rural Broadband
Initiative for Economic Development (New York); Rural Medical
Education Project (Nevada); and Tribal Internet Utility
Services (New Mexico).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $610,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 813,000
Committee recommendation................................ 813,000
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 nutrition assistance activities. The Office
has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $813,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--This program
seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to
enable them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food
purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the
form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law
110-246, provides that $253,250,000 in fiscal year 2010 from
funds appropriated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program account be used to purchase commodities for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................ 8,596,109 6,455,802 15,051,911
Budget estimate, 2010.................................. 10,049,369 6,747,877 16,797,246
Committee recommendation............................... 10,051,707 6,747,877 16,799,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $100,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$10,051,707,000, plus transfers from section 32 of
$6,747,877,000, for a total of $16,799,584,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2009 estimate 2010 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 8,472,755 9,821,347 9,821,347
School Breakfast Program..................................... 2,633,048 2,866,683 2,866,683
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,513,852 2,686,523 2,686,523
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 357,984 377,752 377,752
Special Milk Program......................................... 14,941 13,590 13,590
State administrative expenses................................ 178,994 193,268 193,268
Commodity procurement and computer support................... 750,701 802,570 802,570
Team Nutrition............................................... 15,000 15,016 15,016
Food safety education........................................ 2,500 2,510 2,510
Coordinated review........................................... 5,636 5,751 5,751
CACFP training and technical assistance...................... 3,500 3,537 3,537
Child Nutrition Program Studies and Evaluations.............. 3,000 3,000 5,338
Hunger-Free Community Grants................................. ............... 5,000 5,000
Healthier U.S. School Challenge.............................. ............... 699 699
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $15,016,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $5,500,000 for food service training
grants to States; $3,000,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $1,000,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; $1,500,000 to assist
USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in development
and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials
in support of nutrition education for program participants and
their families; and $3,216,000 for other activities.
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes
$2,338,000 to allow the agency to increase efforts to work
directly with State and local administrators and provide
technical assistance to promote early detection of erroneous
payment problems and to develop appropriate improvement
strategies. Funding will support increased technical assistance
to States in areas such as data analysis, policy interpretation
and training development.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.--Section 4304 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act provided $101,000,000 for a
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July
1, 2010. Of this amount, the Committee has included a general
provision to delay availability of $76,000,000 of these funds
until October 1, 2010. The Committee notes that this general
provision does not lower the funding amount provided in the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program, but simply delays a portion of the funding
until the beginning of fiscal year 2011. The full funding
amount of $101,000,000 will be available for the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1,
2010, as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $7,360,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 7,777,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,552,000,000
\1\Includes $500,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111-5.
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post-partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 9.8
million participants at an average food cost of $45.01 per
person per month in fiscal year 2010.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,552,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC]. The Committee notes that $487,000,000 in
contingency funds will be available in fiscal year 2010 making
a total of $8,039,000,000 available for WIC in fiscal year
2010.
The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC
participation in fiscal year 2010 and makes significant program
improvements. The Committee recommendation includes $80,000,000
for breastfeeding support initiatives, $60,000,000 for State
management information systems, and $14,000,000 for
infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Committee
recommendation provides funding to increase fruit and vegetable
vouchers for all women up to the Institute of Medicine
recommendation. The Committee also includes authorizing
language that exempts military combat pay from WIC eligibility
determination.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity Total
reserve Samoa purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009...................... 48,951,741 3,000,000 1,767,505 250,000 53,969,246
Public Law 111-5 (fiscal year 2009)....... ............ ............ ............ ............ 4,859,000
Budget estimate, 2010..................... 56,217,970 3,000,000 1,880,626 253,250 61,351,846
Committee recommendation.................. 56,217,970 3,000,000 1,880,626 253,250 61,351,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year
2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP] in the The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to
alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by
increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible households
receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase food through
regular retail stores.
Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, and the Community Food Projects program.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently
in operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food
benefits, the value of which is determined by household size
and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal
Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service
annually revises household benefit allotments to reflect
changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis.
State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their fraud
investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or
experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular
employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a
grant program to States to assist them in providing employment
and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$61,351,846,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Of the amount recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made
available as a contingency reserve. The Committee
recommendation includes language that permits the Food and
Nutrition Service to conduct studies and evaluations consistent
with the budget request.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been
important for the Native American population both economically
and nutritionally.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $380,800,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 233,388,000
Committee recommendation................................ 233,388,000
\1\Includes $150,000,000 for The Emergency Food Assistance Program
provided in Public Law 111-5.
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60
years of age or older.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes
$253,250,000 available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities in
fiscal year 2010. In addition to the commodities purchased
specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under agriculture
support and surplus removal programs are donated to States for
distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $233,388,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through
each of the programs funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $162,818,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children,
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
Food Bank Infrastructure Grants.--The Committee recommends
a general provision providing $7,000,000 for Food Bank
Infrastructure Grants as authorized under section 209 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 with particular emphasis
placed on Indian tribal organizations.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $253,250,000 for
TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes
$49,950,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the
Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to
transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities
for this purpose.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $142,595,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 150,139,000
Committee recommendation................................ 147,801,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto
Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program; and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and Pacific
Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,801,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration.
Dietary Guidelines.--The Committee notes that during the
coming year, USDA will receive the report of the 2010 Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee, and will then have the
responsibility to formulate and issue science-based dietary
guidance. In view of the need to communicate clear messages and
motivate changes in consumer behavior, the Committee recommends
that USDA provide a limited number of easily understandable,
readily actionable guidelines that will encourage consumers to
build their diets around nutrient-dense foods.
Nutrition Initiatives.--The Committee is aware of the
important work being undertaken by numerous State, local, and
private organizations in order to reduce hunger and increase
nutrition education throughout the United States. The Committee
applauds these efforts, and encourages USDA to work with
interested organizations throughout the country, including the
St. John's Bread & Life Program in Brooklyn, New York to
provide technical and financial assistance where appropriate,
to help these organizations further their goals.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009......................................... 165,436 4,985 170,421
Budget estimate, 2010........................................ 180,367 6,465 186,832
Committee recommendation..................................... 180,367 6,465 186,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 97 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
facilities financing guarantees, (2) Food for Peace, (3)
section 416b Overseas Donations Program, (4) Market Access
Program, and (5) programs authorized by the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most
CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as
assigned to encourage and enhance the export of U.S.
agricultural commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $186,832,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of
$180,367,000.
Borlaug Fellows Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural
Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides
training for international scientists and policymakers from
selected developing countries. The fellows work closely with
U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise and apply that
knowledge in their home countries. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this program in helping developing countries
strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,606,000 for Capital Security Cost
Sharing [CSCS], as proposed in the budget. The Committee funds
the fiscal year 2010 CSCS assessment at the level requested by
FAS with the understanding that space assignments made by the
Department of State in newly constructed embassies will meet
current and projected FAS space requirements.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
Currency Exchange Rates.--The Committee continues to
include language in the bill, as requested in the budget, to
allow up to $2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to
remain available until expended solely for the purpose of
offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange
rates, subject to documentation.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2009 level.
Market Access Program.--The Committee continues the full
mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the
Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C.
5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for
participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses,
trade associations, and other entities.
Specialty Crops.--The Committee is aware of FAS activities
to provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty
crop exports and encourages the agency to continue these
activities.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $2,736,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 2,812,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,812,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,812,000 for
administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for
Peace title I agreements.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $2,320,900,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,690,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,690,000,000
\1\Includes supplemental funding of $395,000,000 as provided in Public
Law 110-252 and supplemental funding of $700,000,000 as provided in
Public Law 111-32.
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Food
for Peace Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote
broad-based equitable and sustainable development; expand
international trade; develop and expand export markets for U.S.
agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage the
development of private enterprise and democratic participation
in developing countries. The Committee strongly supports the
continued efficient operation of this important program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,690,000,000
for Food for Peace title II grants. The Committee does not
support the President's proposal to reduce the amount available
for direct food assistance to cover administrative costs
instead of providing for those costs through the Commodity
Credit Corporation as is the current practice. Instead, the
Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher
level of direct humanitarian assistance to help meet the
world's growing hunger crisis.
Safe Box.--The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
contained a provision mandating a minimum level of Food for
Peace title II resources be used for non-emergency assistance
($400,000,000 in fiscal year 2010), thereby creating a ``safe
box'' for non-emergency funds. While the Committee fully agrees
with the importance of non-emergency food aid, this language
has the potential to complicate the delivery of food assistance
in an emergency situation. The Committee should be notified
immediately once a determination is made that the need for
emergency assistance will exceed the amount available and the
non-emergency ``safe box'' will be breached. In addition, the
Secretary, in consultation of the Administrator of USAID,
should submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the status
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, as well as notify the
Committee when any draw down of the Trust occurs.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 199,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,500,000
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child
development, and food security for some of the world's poorest
children. The program provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,500,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
Nutrient Fortification Pilot.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 from within the amount appropriated to conduct
pilot projects to develop, pilot, and field test new and
improved micronutrient fortified products designed to meet the
energy and nutrient needs of populations served by the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. This program serves
school-age children, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants,
and children under five, and these populations are the most
susceptible to long-term health implications due to the
composition and content of daily food intake. These funds may
be provided to non-governmental organizations and international
agencies to provide technical assistance to carry out
improvements in the products distributed through the McGovern-
Dole program. The Committee expects a report on the status of
this program with a follow-up report on the progress made to
date by September 1, 2010.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels\1\ subsidy\1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009......................................... 5,470,000 40,000 5,333
Budget estimate, 2010........................................ 5,500,000 11,130 6,820
Committee recommendation..................................... 5,500,000 11,130 6,820
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guarantees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blend of
science and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110-85) reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and
Biologics. FDA is responsible for the life cycle of products,
including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human
and animal drugs, medical devices and biological products to
ensure their safety and effectiveness. FDA is responsible for
the life cycle of the product, including premarket review and
postmarket surveillance of human, animal and biological
products to ensure their safety and efficacy. For Human Drugs
this includes assuring that all drug products used for the
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are safe and
effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization, blood products, and other
biologics.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, and MRIs. Radiological products
include items such as microwave ovens and video display
terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human
exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated
by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation User fees Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009............... 2,038,964 612,911 2,651,875
Budget estimate, 2010.............. 2,337,656 687,280 3,024,936
Committee recommendation........... 2,337,656 687,280 3,024,936
------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,337,656,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$578,162,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections; $57,014,000 in Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act user fee collections; $17,280,000 in Animal
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $5,106,000 in Animal
Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $19,318,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections; and
$10,400,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill
language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or
operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C.
9701.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 648,722 782,915 782,915
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 210,486 236,418 236,418
Field Activities..................................... 438,236 546,497 546,497
==================================================
Human Drugs.............................................. 413,482 457,814 457,814
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 302,386 329,588 329,588
Field Activities..................................... 111,096 128,226 128,226
==================================================
Biologics................................................ 183,451 206,438 206,438
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 148,134 166,182 166,182
Field Activities..................................... 35,317 40,256 40,256
==================================================
Animal Drugs............................................. 116,471 135,475 135,475
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 73,035 82,452 82,452
Field Activities..................................... 43,436 53,023 53,023
==================================================
Medical and radiological devices......................... 280,587 315,377 315,377
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].... 209,061 234,974 234,974
Field Activities..................................... 71,526 80,403 80,403
==================================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........ 52,511 58,745 58,745
==================================================
Other Activities............................................. 120,560 143,712 143,712
==================================================
Rent and related activities.................................. 88,829 91,158 91,158
==================================================
Rental payments to GSA....................................... 134,351 146,022 146,022
==================================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 2,038,964 2,337,656 2,337,656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses
activities, as requested in the budget: $29,536,000 for cost-
of-living adjustments; $14,000,000 for rental payments to GSA
and other rent-related activities; $151,967,000 for food safety
investments; $98,189,000 for investments relating to safer
drugs, biologics and medical devices; and $5,000,000 for
development of policies proposed in the budget.
Of the increases provided, $151,967,000 will be used for
food safety investments. This funding will allow FDA to hire
additional investigators to conduct additional domestic and
foreign food and feed inspections and field exams; improve
laboratory capacity and technologies to test additional samples
for analysis in FDA laboratories; and build and expand existing
relationships with regulatory partners, including State and
local governments. This funding will also be used to promote
industry training and develop additional controls to support
industry prevention efforts, with specific controls for high-
risk commodities; increase the Agency's understanding of food
and feed vulnerabilities and risks and ability to detect
contamination; work on more rapid response efforts; improve
risk communication during a food safety event; and upgrade and
integrate information technology systems necessary to
appropriately screen, sample and enforce FDA regulations.
Of the increases provided, $98,189,000 will be used for
activities related to drug, device and biologics safety. This
includes funds for increased foreign and domestic medical
product inspections and improved laboratory capacity and sample
processing. FDA will also conduct increased work on blood,
tissue and vaccine safety, including the hiring of additional
staff and increasing training to support product development
and the development of new screening tests for emerging blood-
borne diseases. Further, FDA will implement safety requirements
related to the FDA Amendments Act; increase activities relating
to adverse event information collection and analysis; conduct
research on bioequivalence standards for generic forms of novel
products; improve enforcement against fraudulent products;
develop noninvasive techniques to better understand the risks
of anesthetic use in children; and upgrade and integrate
information technology systems.
The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects,
activities and programs at no less than the fiscal year 2009
level, unless otherwise specified.
Antibiotics in Shrimp.--The Committee is concerned about
the contamination of farm-raised shrimp imports with banned
antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration currently
inspects less than 2 percent of imported shrimp. The Committee
strongly encourages FDA to develop, in cooperation with State
testing programs, a program for increasing the inspection of
imported shrimp for banned antibiotics.
Antibiotic Development.--Regulatory uncertainty in the
antibiotic drug arena has been a serious impediment to new
antibiotic development. Although a number of indication-
specific draft guidance documents have recently been published,
there are several serious infection diseases for which guidance
is still needed, including hospital acquired pneumonia,
ventilator-associated pneumonia, and complicated skin and skin
structure infections. The Committee directs FDA to issue
guidance for these diseases. Further, the Committee is aware
that as part of the 2001 Interagency Public Health Action Plan
to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, FDA, along with CDC, agreed
to be the designated lead to identify ways to promote the
development and/or appropriate use of priority antibacterial
drugs for humans, for which current market incentives are
inadequate. The FDA is encouraged to work with other
governmental entities and interested parties to begin this
work, including commissioning a study with an outside entity if
necessary, and to report to the Committee on those efforts.
Antimicrobial Resistance.--The Committee directs FDA to
continue to implement all directives contained in the Food and
Drug Administration Amendments Act and the Animal Drug User Fee
Act regarding antimicrobial resistance. The Committee also
encourages FDA to conduct a focused reassessment on the human
importance ranking of antibiotics, in consultation with
infectious disease experts, to determine the appropriateness of
the current ranking of these drugs according to their
importance in human medicine.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the agency to
submit the fiscal year 2011 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2010
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Further, the Committee directs that in future budget requests,
all performance measures and outputs, such as number of staff
hired and number of inspection performed, be measured according
to budget authority requests. The Committee directs FDA to
provide any performance measures and outputs related to
proposed or current law user fees separately and independent of
one another.
Finally, the Committee notes that the administration's
budget request included increases of nearly 15 percent in
budget authority. However, the budget justification related all
of these increases into two major themes, ``Food Safety'' and
``Medical Product Safety'' without any significant detail on
how this funding would be used. The Committee eventually
received some level of detail regarding the request, and
directs FDA to provide significantly more detailed information,
including a high level of details on each budgetary theme, in
future budget requests.
Cosmetics.--The Committee recommendation includes an
increase of $2,000,000 for the cosmetics program. With this
increase, total funding for cosmetics activities at FDA will be
$10,200,000 in fiscal year 2010, which includes the Office of
Cosmetics and Colors in the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition and inspection activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs.
Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.--The Committee
recommendation includes $18,000,000 for the critical path
initiative, including not less than $6,000,000 for critical
path partnerships as authorized by section 566 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The Committee expects
that this funding will be used to further FDA's work on
critical path opportunities and to promote collaborations with
other government agencies, academia, patient groups, and other
interested parties including, but not limited to, the Critical
Path Institute, the National Institute for Pharmaceutical
Technology and Education, the Coalition Against Major Diseases,
and the Coalition Against Tuberculosis.
Of the $6,000,000 provided for critical path partnerships,
not less than $2,000,000 shall be used to support research
partnerships for the treatment and/or rapid diagnosis of
tropical diseases as defined by section 524 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Committee is particularly
concerned with treatments for tuberculosis [TB] and drug-
resistant TB. Worldwide, almost 2 million people die from TB
and more than 9 million people develop active disease every
year. The rise of drug-resistant TB can result in a global,
untreatable epidemic. The Committee believes that the use of
single drugs too often results in drug resistance, and that
more effective combinations of treatment are needed. Therefore,
the Committee directs the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research to enter into a competitive agreement with an entity
eligible for funding under section 566 of the FD&C Act to
assist with the development of new combinations of drugs for
the rapid and effective therapy of tuberculosis.
The Committee directs FDA to report on critical path
spending quarterly. Reports should include activities
undertaken with the $18,000,000 provided for the overall
initiative, and more specifically projects awarded with the
$6,000,000 in partnership funding. The report shall include the
amount of each project or activity, the center responsible for
the funding, a description of the specific project or activity
being funded, and in the case of partnership funding, the
recipient of the funds.
Definition of Food.--The Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 included section 912, which prohibits
interstate commerce of food to which certain articles have been
added. On July 29, 2008, FDA published a Federal Register
notice seeking comments on this section. One of the questions
for which FDA requested comments was the applicability of
section 912 to dietary supplements, given that dietary
supplements already clearly exclude certain articles as defined
in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The
Committee notes that comments were due on October 27, 2008, and
more than 8 months later, FDA still has not resolved this
issue. The Committee directs FDA to dispose of this issue.
Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
for Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability, as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act
of 2007.
Epilepsy Drug Safety Research.--The Committee is concerned
about recent reports of unexpected side effects, including
seizures, when epileptic individuals switch among different
manufacturers' versions of the same therapeutic agent. The
Committee directs the FDA to submit a report not later than
September 30, 2010 detailing FDA's advice on planned research
on the impact of substituting bioequivalent anti-epileptic
drugs on epileptic individuals and detailing FDA proposed
guidance or actions to minimize the health impact or side
effects as a result of the agency's research on switching
bioequivalent anti-epileptic drugs.
Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommendation includes no
less than $92,966,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of
which $51,545,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs. Total
funding for the Office of Generic Drugs is an increase of
$10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level.
Human Resources.--The Committee is concerned that FDA is
not being appropriately serviced by the Rockville Human
Resources [HR] Center. In 2004, HHS consolidated all human
resource functions into five human resource centers. FDA, along
with several other agencies, is serviced by the Rockville HR
Center. An audit conducted by the Office of Personnel
Management [OPM] and HHS in 2008, found that the Rockville HR
Center was failing in many areas, and the center's authority to
hire individuals from outside the Government was suspended. As
a result, FDA made the decision to independently contract with
OPM to facilitate FDA's continued need to hire individuals from
outside of Government. It may be more than a year before the
Rockville HR Center gets all of its hiring authority back.
Currently, FDA is paying HHS for a service that is not being
provided as contractually agreed, and is outsourcing additional
human resource activities to OPM in order to fill the gap left
by the Rockville HR Center. The Committee has invested
significant resources at FDA so the agency can backfill
positions and hire new staff to meet increasing agency demands.
The Committee believes FDA will be better serviced by a fully
functioning human resource operation. Therefore, the Committee
directs HHS and FDA to come to a resolution that ensures FDA is
being serviced by a fully functioning HR center and report to
the Committee on the measures that are being taken to meet
FDA's hiring needs.
Infant Formula.--The Committee is aware that, in recent
years, infant formula manufacturers have increasingly added new
ingredients to infant formulas, such as long chain
polyunsaturated fatty acids, prebiotics, and probiotics. The
stated goal of such food ingredient additions is to obtain
certain beneficial outcomes with respect to infant health and
nutrition. These products are heavily marketed as offering
specific health and developmental advantages through nutrition
but at the same time cost more than traditional infant
formulas. Without a doubt, all infants should have access to
infant formulas that promote healthy growth and development.
However, the Committee is concerned that product development in
the infant formula industry is outpacing FDA's regulatory
actions with respect to new infant formulas and the claims
associated with them. The Committee directs the FDA to submit
to Congress, within 120 days of enactment, a report containing
a list of new infant formulas introduced into interstate
commerce in the last decade; information on the agency's
efforts to issue structure/function claim guidance for infant
formulas; the health claim petitions (either statutory or
qualified) pertaining to infant growth, development or
nutrition received by FDA; and actions taken by FDA in response
to the petitions for these claims for infant formula, including
the number of rejections and the reasons for each rejection.
Mammography.--The Committee is aware that the Mammography
Quality Standards Act [MQSA] has resulted in improved quality
of mammography to make mammograms a more reliable tool to
detect breast cancers. Appropriated funds pay for inspections
in Government entities and in facilities where at least 50
percent of mammograms performed are funded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical
Cancer Early Detection Program, as well as other important
activities. The Committee recommends no less than $5,296,000 in
appropriated funds, as well as $19,318,000 in user fee
collections, for activities related to MQSA.
Neglected Diseases.--The Committee is concerned about the
challenge of increasing the number of approved treatments for
diseases that, although not necessarily rare, may have few if
any therapeutic options. The Committee recognizes that the
definition of a rare disease or condition under the Orphan Drug
Act includes many tropical diseases or conditions that affect
more than 200,000 persons in the United States.
Because the Orphan Drug Act already embraces therapies to
treat many tropical diseases, the Committee urges FDA to take
active steps to stimulate orphan status and support their
development. Where appropriate, FDA should engage in
partnerships and collaborations to identify compounds that may
be suitable to treat this subset of orphan diseases and work in
a proactive way to identify compounds to treat such diseases.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the Office of Women's
Health. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office
of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its
activities, and to enhance its funding if necessary.
Packaged Ice Manufacturing.--The Committee recognizes that
ice is a food product produced in the United States for both
interstate and intrastate commerce, and has been made aware of
concerns regarding individual retail outlets that manufacture
and bag ice. The Committee directs FDA to work to educate
manufacturers regarding safe production of ice, including the
issuance of a Food Facts sheet informing the public about
existing FDA regulations that apply to ice manufacturers.
Further, the Committee directs FDA to consider whether or not
formal regulations regarding the safe handling, processing, and
packaging of packaged ice sold for human consumption would be
an appropriate measure.
Pediatric Cancer.--The Committee continues to note the lack
of new therapies associated with high-risk neuroblastoma.
Unlike other pediatric cancers, 5-year survival rates for this
devastating disease have remained unchanged at approximately 20
percent for decades. The Committee encourages FDA to continue
to give priority attention to new therapies and treatment
protocols for Stage IV neuroblastoma patients.
Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that
FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity
issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species,
weights, country of origin, and treatment. The Committee
encourages FDA to work with States to more aggressively combat
fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee recognizes that honey
is produced in the United States, traded internationally and
consumed as both a packaged food and as a food ingredient, and
believes FDA needs to work to prevent misbranded honey and
honey-derived products from entering the U.S. market. The
Committee is aware that the FDA has been in receipt of a
proposed standard of identity for honey for 3 years, and
directs FDA to respond to this proposal and, if deemed
appropriate, begin working toward a U.S. standard of identity
for honey.
Tobacco Regulation.--On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law giving
FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. The tobacco program
will be fully supported by user fees. However, in the interim
period before FDA starts collecting fees, the law permits the
agency to use appropriated funds for start up costs. The
Committee expects that start up costs funded with
appropriations will be minimal and that the agency will work
diligently to initiate collection of the fee so appropriated
funds will no longer be necessary for operation of the tobacco
program. The Committee instructs FDA to report quarterly on
tobacco program implementation. These reports should include
significant milestones in implementing the tobacco program, the
amount of appropriated funds used for tobacco regulation by
program, the specific activities from which appropriated funds
are taken, and the impact this reduction in funds will have on
the activity, if any. The Committee notes that at the time of
the writing of this bill the specific U.S.C. citation for
collection of the tobacco fee was not available. The Committee
will authorize collection of this fee in fiscal year 2010.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2009.................................... $12,433,000
Budget estimate, 2010.......................... 12,433,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,433,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000
for FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to
upgrade FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently
below public safety standards and incapable of performing
agency requirements.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2009........................................ $49,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 54,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 54,500,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $54,500,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section provides the Secretary of
Agriculture with needed transfer authorities for the Rural
Development Disaster Assistance Fund.
Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund.
Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 706. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 707. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 708. This section prohibits the use of funds to
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 709. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 710. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 711. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information
Officer.
Section 712. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 713. This section prohibits the use of funds for
user fee proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget
impact information.
Section 714. This section places conditions on the closing
or relocation of Rural Development State Offices.
Section 715. This section prohibits the closing of the Food
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
Section 716. This section provides program funding for
remote rural communities suffering from extreme outmigration.
Section 717. This section limits the amount of funding
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust.
Section 718. This section provides funding for the National
Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or
renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on
botanicals and dietary supplements at the National Center in
conjunction with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. This research aids FDA's regulatory mission in
ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements by
identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of
botanicals and dietary supplements.
Section 719. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year.
Section 720. This section prohibits funds to carry out
certain sections of Public Law 110-246.
Section 721. This section makes certain former Rural
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic
Development loan and grant program.
Section 722. This section provides funding to complete the
environmental assessment for and continue the design of a
facility that will allow the creation of sterile fruit flies of
all varieties of established fruit fly pests.
Section 723. This section provides for grants to develop
and field test new food products designed to cost-effectively
improve the nutritional delivery and functional form of food
assistance products.
Section 724. This section provides for processing of Rural
Development documents.
Section 725. This section makes selected communities
eligible for certain Rural Development programs, pending
receipt of the 2010 Census.
Section 726. This section provides funding for the Bill
Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
Section 727. This section provides funding for section 6402
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, to
support development and expansion of the specialty cheese
industry.
Section 728. This section authorizes certain watershed
projects.
Section 729. The section includes language amending the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Section 730. This section modifies matching requirements
for certain research grants.
Section 731. This section provides funds for Rural
Development and the Farm Service Agency information technology
expenses.
Section 732. This section allows for exemptions of combat
pay for WIC eligibility.
Section 733. This section clarifies lack of access to risk
management products.
Section 734. This section provides funding for the purpose
of evaluating program performance in the WIC program.
Section 735. This section provides for certain funding
activities in the WIC program.
Section 736. This section requests information regarding
humanitarian food assistance.
Section 737. This section provides funding for food bank
infrastructure grants as authorized in the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008.
Section 738. This section provides funding for the
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers Program as authorized in
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Section 739. This section provides funding for the Durum
Wheat Quality Program as authorized in the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008.
Section 740. This section provides funding for a grant for
work-force development initiatives to address out-migration in
rural areas.
Section 741. This section provides funding to carry out a
pilot program for hardwood trees.
Section 742. This section clarifies certain program
eligibility criteria.
Section 743. This section includes language regarding
reconstituted infant formula.
Section 744. This section includes language regarding
poultry imports.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2010, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 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, 2010, and the accompanying Senate
Report.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2010 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2010 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee does not recommend funding for programs which
currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2010.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 7, 2009,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc an original bill (S.
1406) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and an original bill
(S. 1407) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, with each subject to
amendment and subject to the budget allocations, and authorized
the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the
subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate-reported bill as a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House
companion measure, by a recorded vote of 30-0, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Specter
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Mr. Voinovich
Ms. Murkowski
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
Chapter 36--Crop Insurance
Sec. 1531. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) * * *
* * * * * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) Lack of access
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the Secretary may provide assistance
(including multiyear assistance) under this
section to eligible producers on a farm that--
(i) suffered a production loss or
multiyear production losses due to a
natural cause during the 2008 crop
year; and
------
TITLE 19--CUSTOMS DUTIES
Chapter 12--Trade Act of 1974
Sec. 2497. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) * * *
* * * * * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) Lack of access
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the Secretary may provide assistance
(including multiyear assistance) under this
section to eligible producers on a farm that--
(i) suffered a production loss or
multiyear production losses due to a
natural cause during the 2008 crop
year; and
------
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 13--School Lunch Programs
Sec. 1758. Program requirements
(a) * * *
(1)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(14) Combat pay.--
(A) Definition of combat pay.--In this
paragraph, the term ``combat pay'' means any
additional payment under chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, or otherwise designated by
the Secretary to be appropriate for exclusion
under this paragraph, that is received by or
from a member of the United States Armed Forces
deployed to a designated combat zone, if the
additional pay--
(i) is the result of deployment to
or service in a combat zone; and
(ii) was not received immediately
prior to serving in a combat zone.
(B) Exclusion.--Combat pay shall not be
considered to be income for the purpose of
determining the eligibility for free or reduced
price meals of a child who is a member of the
household of a member of the United States
Armed Forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1766. Child and adult care food program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(r) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Limitation
The Secretary shall limit reimbursement under this
subsection for meals served under a program to
institutions located in [ten] eleven States, of which
[eight] nine States shall be Wisconsin, Vermont,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, and
Michigan and two States shall be approved by the
Secretary through a competitive application process.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 13A--Child Nutrition
Sec. 1786. Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants,
and children
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Combat pay.--For the purpose of determining income
eligibility under this section, a State agency shall exclude
from income any additional payment under chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, or otherwise designated by the Secretary to
be appropriate for exclusion under this subparagraph, that is
received by or from a member of the United States Armed Forces
deployed to a designated combat zone, if the additional pay--
(i) is the result of deployment to or service in a
combat zone; and
(ii) was not received immediately prior to serving
in a combat zone.
[(C)] (D) * * *
------
CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 110-329
DIVISION B--DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2008
TITLE I--RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS
GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Sec. 10101. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Purpose and Availability of Fund.--Subject to
subsection (d), amounts in the Rural Development Disaster
Assistance Fund shall be available to the Secretary of
Agriculture, until expended, to provide additional amounts for
authorized activities of agencies of the Rural Development
Mission Area in areas affected by a disaster declared by the
President or the Secretary of Agriculture. Amounts so provided
shall be in addition to any other amounts available to carry
out the activity. In carrying out this section, the Secretary
may transfer funds into existing or new accounts as determined
by the Secretary.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2010: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory............................................... 100,179 100,179 89,627 \1\89,627
Discretionary........................................... 23,050 23,050 24,886 \1\24,886
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\97,683
2011.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,856
2012.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,104
2013.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 253
2014 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 193
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 33,914 NA 34,450
2010.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' means
a provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each item, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm).
Following is a list of congressionally directed spending
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Project Funding Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS............................ Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department of Agriculture.................. $69,000 Carper and Kaufman
APHIS............................ Animal management and control, APHIS Mississippi................................................. $496,000 Cochran
APHIS............................ Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry $1,500,000 Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker
Experiment Sta- tion.
APHIS............................ Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont...................................... $240,000 Leahy
APHIS............................ Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana............................................................ $94,000 Landrieu
APHIS............................ Blackbird management, APHIS North and South Dakota............................................... $265,000 Conrad, Dorgan, and Johnson
APHIS............................ Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department of Agriculture..................... $248,000 Klobuchar, Levin, and Stabenow
APHIS............................ California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and $619,000 Feinstein
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and $738,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture........................................ $208,000 Cochran
APHIS............................ Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of $223,000 Casey and Specter
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan................................................................ $139,000 Levin and Stabenow
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi............................................................. $223,000 Cochran
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department........................ $103,000 Leahy
APHIS............................ Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries............................... $69,000 Landrieu
APHIS............................ Disease surveillance in North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Dickinson State $700,000 Conrad and Dorgan
University.
APHIS............................ Genetically modified products, Iowa State University............................................. $259,000 Grassley and Harkin
APHIS............................ Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana $650,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, Risch,
Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board. and Tester
APHIS............................ Gypsy moth, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Agriculture..................................... $250,000 Lautenberg and Menendez
APHIS............................ Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii................................................................... $3,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS Hawaii................................................ $2,230,000 Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee....................................... $500,000 Alexander
APHIS............................ Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia.................................. $280,000 Byrd
APHIS............................ Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, Vermont....... $94,000 Leahy
APHIS............................ Mormon crickets, APHIS Nevada.................................................................... $1,000,000 Reid
APHIS............................ National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University................................. $500,000 Brownback and Roberts
APHIS............................ National farm animal identification and records, Holstein Association............................ $343,000 Leahy
APHIS............................ National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M.................................................... $290,000 Hutchison
APHIS............................ New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State University........................ $404,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
APHIS............................ Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe.................................................... $176,000 Crapo and Risch
APHIS............................ Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture........................................ $235,000 Reid
APHIS............................ Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.................................... $926,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, Risch,
and Tester
APHIS............................ Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii............................................................ $469,000 Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks................. $519,000 Johnson
ARS/BF........................... Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD..................................................... $3,000,000 Cardin and Mikulski
ARS/BF........................... Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT.......................................................... $4,527,000 Bennett
ARS/BF........................... Agricultural Research Center, Pullman, WA........................................................ $3,740,000 Cantwell and Murray
ARS/BF........................... Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT.......................................................... $2,500,000 Baucus and Tester
ARS/BF........................... Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV.................................................. $2,000,000 Byrd
ARS/BF........................... ARS Biotechnology Lab, Lorcom, MS................................................................ $1,500,000 Cochran
ARS/BF........................... ARS Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington, KY.................................... $2,000,000 McConnell
ARS/BF........................... ARS Research and Development Center, Auburn, AL.................................................. $3,500,000 Shelby
ARS/BF........................... ARS Waste Management Research Facility, Bowling Green, KY........................................ $2,000,000 McConnell
ARS/BF........................... Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac, WI.................................... $4,000,000 Kohl
ARS/BF........................... Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, MS....................................... $4,000,000 Cochran
ARS/BF........................... National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, MO........................................ $3,500,000 Bond
ARS/BF........................... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI............................................. $5,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
ARS/BF........................... Sugarcane Research Facility, Houma, LA........................................................... $2,000,000 Landrieu and Vitter
ARS/BF........................... Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE................................................... $3,760,000 Ben Nelson
ARS/S&E.......................... Anthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory, ARS, Manhattan, KS.......................... $1,500,000 Brownback
ARS/S&E.......................... Aquaculture Fisheries Center, ARS, Harry K. Dupree National Acquaculture Center, AR.............. $519,000 Lincoln and Pryor
ARS/S&E.......................... Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, ARS, Stuttgart, AR............... $1,597,000 Martinez
ARS/S&E.......................... Biomass Crop Production, ARS, Brookings, SD...................................................... $1,250,000 Johnson and Thune
ARS/S&E.......................... Biomedical Materials in Plants, ARS, Beltsville, MD.............................................. $1,700,000 Cardin and Mikulski
ARS/S&E.......................... Bioremediation Research, ARS, Beltsville, MD..................................................... $111,000 Cardin
ARS/S&E.......................... Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation, ARS, Washington, DC.......................... $2,750,000 Durbin
ARS/S&E.......................... Center for Agroforestry, ARS, Booneville, AR..................................................... $660,000 Bond
ARS/S&E.......................... Computer Vision Engineer, ARS, Kearneysville, WV................................................. $400,000 Byrd
ARS/S&E.......................... Dairy Forage Research Center, ARS, Marshfield, WI................................................ $2,500,000 Kohl
ARS/S&E.......................... Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, ARS, Booneville, AR.................................... $1,805,000 Lincoln and Pryor
ARS/S&E.......................... Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA........................................ $623,000 Landrieu and Vitter
ARS/S&E.......................... Endophyte Research, ARS, Booneville, AR.......................................................... $994,000 Lincoln and Pryor
ARS/S&E.......................... Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease Management, ARS, Prosser, WA...................... $200,000 Murray
ARS/S&E.......................... Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA.................................... $3,490,000 Landrieu
ARS/S&E.......................... Foundy Sand By-Products Utilization, ARS, Beltsville, MD......................................... $638,000 Cardin
ARS/S&E.......................... Genomics, ARS, University of Minnesota........................................................... $200,000 Klobuchar
ARS/S&E.......................... Human Nutrition Research, ARS, Boston, MA........................................................ $350,000 Kennedy and Kerry
ARS/S&E.......................... Human Nutrition Research, ARS, Houston, TX....................................................... $300,000 Hutchison
ARS/S&E.......................... Improved Crop Production Practices, ARS, Auburn, AL.............................................. $1,293,000 Sessions
ARS/S&E.......................... Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, ARS, Washington, DC............................................... $111,000 Cardin
ARS/S&E.......................... National Bio and Agro Defense Facility, ARS, Manhattan, KS....................................... $1,500,000 Brownback
ARS/S&E.......................... National Center for Agricultural Law, ARS, Beltsville, MD........................................ $654,000 Harkin, Lincoln, and Pryor
ARS/S&E.......................... New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, ARS, Orono, ME........................... $2,249,000 Collins
ARS/S&E.......................... North Carolina Human Nutrition Center, ARS, Kannapolis, NC....................................... $1,000,000 Burr and Hagan
ARS/S&E.......................... Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, ARS, Mandan, ND....................................... $543,000 Conrad and Dorgan
ARS/S&E.......................... Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, ARS, Corvallis, OR................................... $275,000 Merkley, Murray, and Wyden
ARS/S&E.......................... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center Staffing, ARS, Hilo, HI............................... $700,000 Akaka and Inouye
ARS/S&E.......................... Phytoestrogen Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA..................................................... $1,750,000 Landrieu
ARS/S&E.......................... Potato Diseases, ARS, Beltsville, MD............................................................. $40,000 Cardin
ARS/S&E.......................... Poultry Diseases, ARS, Beltsville, MD............................................................ $408,000 Cardin and Mikulski
ARS/S&E.......................... Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory, ARS, Oxford, MS............. $332,000 Cochran
ARS/S&E.......................... Sorghum Research, ARS, Little Rock, AR........................................................... $135,000 Lincoln and Pryor
ARS/S&E.......................... Termite Species in Hawaii, ARS, New Orleans, LA.................................................. $200,000 Akaka and Inouye
ARS/S&E.......................... Tropical Aquaculture Feeds, ARS, Hilo, HI........................................................ $1,438,000 Akaka and Inouye
ARS/S&E.......................... Water Management Research Laboratory, ARS, Brawley, CA........................................... $340,000 Boxer and Feinstein
ARS/S&E.......................... Water Use Reduction, ARS, Dawson, GA............................................................. $657,000 Chambliss and Isakson
ARS/S&E.......................... Wild Rice, ARS, St. Paul, MN..................................................................... $300,000 Klobuchar
General Provision................ Agricultural pest facility, APHIS Hawaii......................................................... $2,600,000 Akaka and Inouye
General Provision................ Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets............................ $1,000,000 Leahy
General Provision................ Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.......... $2,000,000 Kohl
General Provision................ Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi........ $3,497,000 Cochran and Wicker
General Provision................ Speciality Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.......... $350,000 Kohl
General Provision................ Workforce development and out-migration, Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation........................... $250,000 Brownback
NIFA/Extension................... Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, Urbandale, IA.................................... $75,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/Extension................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension.............................. $376,000 Kohl
NIFA/Extension................... Dairy education, Iowa State University........................................................... $175,000 Harkin
NIFA/Extension................... E-commerce, Mississippi State University......................................................... $231,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/Extension................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.. $475,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, and Hutchison
NIFA/Extension................... Extension specialist, Mississippi State University............................................... $98,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/Extension................... Food Production Education, Vermont Community Foundation, Middlebury, VT.......................... $120,000 Sanders
NIFA/Extension................... Health education leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation.......................... $590,000 McConnell
NIFA/Extension................... Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Madison........................... $400,000 Kohl
NIFA/Extension................... Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach, Ducks Unlimited........................................ $155,000 Levin and Stabenow
NIFA/Extension................... Iowa Vitality Center, Iowa State University...................................................... $250,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/Extension................... Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program, Maine Department of Agriculture........................... $700,000 Collins
NIFA/Extension................... National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College................................ $170,000 Harkin
NIFA/Extension................... Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public $950,000 Kohl
Institutions.
NIFA/Extension................... Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH..................................... $700,000 Brown and Voinovich
NIFA/Extension................... Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University............... $209,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker
NIFA/Extension................... Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, University of Maine.............................. $450,000 Collins and Snowe
NIFA/Extension................... Range improvement, New Mexico State University................................................... $223,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/Extension................... Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL............................ $175,000 Durbin
NIFA/Extension................... Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing Power.......................... $376,000 Kohl
NIFA/Extension................... Veterinary Technology Satellite Program, Colby Community College................................. $1,000,000 Brownback
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Agriculture based industrial lubricants, University of Northern Iowa............................. $405,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Agriculture development in the American Pacific, University of Hawaii............................ $400,000 Akaka and Inouye
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State University.................................... $500,000 Byrd
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Animal Health Research and Diagnostics, Murray State University.................................. $300,000 McConnell
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University........................ $350,000 Boxer and Feinstein
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA.............................................................. $164,000 Specter
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS.............................................. $480,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.................... $340,000 Specter
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Clemon University Veterinary Institute, SC....................................................... $1,000,000 Graham
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Cotton research, Texas Tech University........................................................... $200,000 Cornyn and Hutchison
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, Ames, IA......................................... $110,000 Harkin
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD.................................................. $550,000 Cardin
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University................................................. $160,000 Brown
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central Florida.................... $300,000 Martinez and Bill Nelson
NIFA/RE/FA....................... International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand Markets, Purdue University........ $750,000 Lugar
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Kansas Biobased Polymer Initiative, Kansas Bioscience Authority.................................. $750,000 Brownback
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen S. Austin State University................................ $300,000 Hutchison
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa State University.................. $187,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Mississippi Valley State University.............................................................. $1,002,000 Cochran
NIFA/RE/FA....................... NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the $295,000 Collins and Snowe
University of Maine.
NIFA/RE/FA....................... PM-10 air quality study, Washington State University............................................. $150,000 Murray
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS................................................. $2,000,000 Brownback
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS...................................................... $215,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi........................................... $300,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, Michigan Department of Natural Resources........................... $150,000 Levin and Stabenow
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH........................................... $500,000 Brown and Voinovich
NIFA/RE/FA....................... Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV........................................................ $500,000 Byrd
NIFA/SRG......................... Advanced genetic technologies, University of Kentucky Research Foundation........................ $650,000 McConnell
NIFA/SRG......................... Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX.............................................. $300,000 Hutchison
NIFA/SRG......................... Aegilops cylindrica/Biomass (jointed goatgrass), Washington State University..................... $200,000 Cantwell and Murray
NIFA/SRG......................... Agricultural Diversification, University of Hawaii............................................... $153,000 Akaka and Inouye
NIFA/SRG......................... Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, Pennsylvania State University......................... $248,000 Specter
NIFA/SRG......................... Agricultural Science, The Ohio State University.................................................. $450,000 Voinovich
NIFA/SRG......................... Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............... $300,000 Cornyn, Hutchison, and Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State $1,000,000 Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor, and
University, Kansas State University. Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Aquaculture product & marketing development, West Virginia University............................ $550,000 Byrd
NIFA/SRG......................... Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center...................................... $150,000 Landrieu and Vitter
NIFA/SRG......................... Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station............................ $361,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/SRG......................... Avian bioscience, University of Delaware......................................................... $150,000 Carper and Kaufman
NIFA/SRG......................... Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of Idaho...................... $547,000 Baucus, Crapo, Risch and Tester
NIFA/SRG......................... Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration, University of Tennessee.......................... $1,000,000 Alexander
NIFA/SRG......................... Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University............................................... $223,000 Warner and Webb
NIFA/SRG......................... Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University........... $839,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker
NIFA/SRG......................... Brucellosis Vaccine, Montana State University.................................................... $305,000 Baucus and Tester
NIFA/SRG......................... Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University..... $176,000 Bingaman and Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Center for One Medicine.......................................................................... $500,000 Burris and Durbin
NIFA/SRG......................... Center for rural studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences......... $350,000 Leahy
NIFA/SRG......................... Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.. $250,000 Leahy
NIFA/SRG......................... Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida.................................................... $200,000 Martinez
NIFA/SRG......................... Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington State University and the University of $400,000 Murray
Washington.
NIFA/SRG......................... Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State $350,000 Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Murray,
Universi- ty. and Risch
NIFA/SRG......................... Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia................................ $346,000 Chambliss and Isakson
NIFA/SRG......................... Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.............. $550,000 Lautenberg and Menendez
NIFA/SRG......................... Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts................................................. $160,000 Kennedy and Kerry
NIFA/SRG......................... Crop integration and production, South Dakota State University................................... $400,000 Johnson and Thune
NIFA/SRG......................... Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M University........................................ $200,000 Hutchison
NIFA/SRG......................... Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State University.......................................... $372,000 Casey and Specter
NIFA/SRG......................... Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State University....................................... $176,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/SRG......................... Drought mitigation, University of Nebraska....................................................... $600,000 Ben Nelson
NIFA/SRG......................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas $575,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, Hutchison, Tom Udall
AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
NIFA/SRG......................... Emerald Ash Borer, The Ohio State University..................................................... $550,000 Voinovich
NIFA/SRG......................... Environmentally safe products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.... $250,000 Leahy
NIFA/SRG......................... Floriculture, University of Hawaii............................................................... $300,000 Akaka and Inouye
NIFA/SRG......................... Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University.................................................... $298,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/SRG......................... Food and Agriculture Policy Institute............................................................ $1,213,000 Bond, Grassley, Harkin, Isakson, Reid
NIFA/SRG......................... Forages for Advancing Livestock Production, University of Kentucky............................... $473,000 McConnell
NIFA/SRG......................... Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California.............................................. $750,000 Boxer and Feinstein
NIFA/SRG......................... Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and $797,000 Cochran and Wicker
Disease, Mississippi State University.
NIFA/SRG......................... Grain sorghum, Kansas State University........................................................... $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, Oregon State University, Washington $150,000 Merkley, Murray, and Wyden
State Univer- sity.
NIFA/SRG......................... High Performance Computing, Utah State University................................................ $263,000 Bennett
NIFA/SRG......................... Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA.......................... $526,000 Landrieu and Vitter
NIFA/SRG......................... Infectious disease research, Colorado State University........................................... $650,000 Bennet and Mark Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Inland Marine Aquaculture, Virginia Tech University.............................................. $400,000 Warner and Webb
NIFA/SRG......................... Institute for Food Science and Engineering, University of Arkansas............................... $500,000 Lincoln and Pryor
NIFA/SRG......................... Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, $188,000 Lugar
Purdue University.
NIFA/SRG......................... Invasive Plant Management, Montana State University.............................................. $270,000 Baucus and Tester
NIFA/SRG......................... Joint U.S. China Biotechnology Research and Extension, Utah State University..................... $210,000 Bennett
NIFA/SRG......................... Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State University............................................ $105,000 Harkin
NIFA/SRG......................... Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY................................................. $200,000 Gillibrand and Schumer
NIFA/SRG......................... Maple research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences................... $165,000 Leahy
NIFA/SRG......................... Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University.......................................... $188,000 Lugar
NIFA/SRG......................... Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University................................................ $250,000 Grassley, Harkin and Klobuchar
NIFA/SRG......................... Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University....................................................... $821,000 Casey and Specter
NIFA/SRG......................... National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, Colorado State University, Cornell $655,000 Chambliss, Bennet and Schumer
University, University of Georgia.
NIFA/SRG......................... National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia.......................... $690,000 Bond
NIFA/SRG......................... Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico State University............................. $209,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of Nevada Reno..................................... $500,000 Reid
NIFA/SRG......................... New Century Farm, Iowa State University.......................................................... $350,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/SRG......................... New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY............................................................ $525,000 McConnell
NIFA/SRG......................... New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University........ $654,000 Cochran and Wicker
NIFA/SRG......................... Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State University.................................... $176,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Organic cropping, Oregon State University........................................................ $149,000 Merkley and Wyden
NIFA/SRG......................... Organic cropping, Washington State University.................................................... $264,000 Cantwell and Murray
NIFA/SRG......................... Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State University........................................... $69,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Pierce's disease, University of California....................................................... $2,000,000 Boxer and Feinstein
NIFA/SRG......................... Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, $200,000 Hutchison
Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
NIFA/SRG......................... Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, $1,037,000 Cantwell, Collins, Crapo, Merkley,
University of Maine. Murray, Risch, Snowe, Wyden
NIFA/SRG......................... Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky Research Foundation................................ $671,000 McConnell
NIFA/SRG......................... Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University.................................................. $500,000 Brownback and Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Protein utilization, Iowa State University....................................................... $600,000 Grassley and Harkin
NIFA/SRG......................... Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics, University of Idaho............................................... $300,000 Crapo and Risch
NIFA/SRG......................... Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University..................................... $1,000,000 Conrad and Dorgan
NIFA/SRG......................... Ruminant nutrition consortium, South Dakota State University..................................... $563,000 Johnson and Thune
NIFA/SRG......................... Rural Policies Research Institute................................................................ $889,000 Harkin
NIFA/SRG......................... Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University................................................... $250,000 Bennet and Mark Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Seed technology, South Dakota State University................................................... $350,000 Johnson and Thune
NIFA/SRG......................... Small fruit research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University.. $300,000 Cantwell, Crapo, Merkley, Murray, Risch,
Wyden
NIFA/SRG......................... Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico State University.............. $187,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University.............................. $350,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall
NIFA/SRG......................... Soybean Cyst Nematode, University of Missouri.................................................... $556,000 Bond
NIFA/SRG......................... Soybean research, National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois............. $400,000 Burris and Durbin
NIFA/SRG......................... Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture.................................. $175,000 Lincoln and Pryor
NIFA/SRG......................... Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, Pennsylvania State University....................... $142,000 Specter
NIFA/SRG......................... Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University................................................ $200,000 Baucus
NIFA/SRG......................... Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia Tech......................... $250,000 Warner and Webb
NIFA/SRG......................... Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty Crops, University of Maine.. $200,000 Collins and Snowe
NIFA/SRG......................... Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, Louisiana State University.............................. $200,000 Landrieu
NIFA/SRG......................... Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR, University of Hawaii................................... $800,000 Akaka and Inouye
NIFA/SRG......................... Virtual plant database enhancement project, Missouri Botanical Garden............................ $588,000 Bond
NIFA/SRG......................... Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University........ $260,000 Cantwell and Murray
NIFA/SRG......................... Viticulture consortium, University of California................................................. $1,200,000 Boxer
NIFA/SRG......................... Water conservation, Kansas State University...................................................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Wetland plants, Louisiana State University....................................................... $200,000 Landrieu
NIFA/SRG......................... Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University.................................................. $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts
NIFA/SRG......................... Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, WY.............................................. $300,000 Barrasso
NIFA/SRG......................... Wood utilization (ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, WV)............................................ $4,841,000 Burr, Byrd, Cochran, Collins, Crapo,
Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Risch,
Snowe, Stabenow, Wicker, and Wyden
NIFA/SRG......................... World Food and Health Initiative (IL)............................................................ $250,000 Burris and Durbin
NRCS/CO.......................... Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey, NRCS Wyoming.................................................... $200,000 Enzi
NRCS/CO.......................... Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D Councils......................... $1,400,000 Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO.......................... Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS.................................................... $939,000 Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Appropriate Wetland and Wet-Mesic Species, Tallgrass Prairie Center, University of Northern Iowa. $134,000 Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Center for Invasive Species Eradication, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............ $1,000,000 Hutchison
NRCS/CO.......................... Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa Soybean Association............. $288,000 Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative, McNeese State University................................ $500,000 Landrieu
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Fuels Management and Restoration, Wildfire Support Group, NV........................ $269,000 Reid
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association...................... $120,000 Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS New Jersey............................................... $236,000 Lautenberg and Menendez
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS Tennessee................................................ $1,000,000 Alexander
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin........................................ $516,000 Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS.......................................... $376,000 Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi.............................................................. $235,000 Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board................................... $300,000 Leahy
NRCS/CO.......................... Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement............................. $800,000 Chambliss
NRCS/CO.......................... Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education Watershed Project, Texas State University... $300,000 Hutchison
NRCS/CO.......................... Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin............................................. $732,000 Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control, Great Lakes Commission............................... $404,000 Levin, Stabenow, and Voinovich
NRCS/CO.......................... Great Plain Riparian Initiative, National Wild Turkey Federation................................. $500,000 Ben Nelson
NRCS/CO.......................... Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project, Western Kentucky Research Foundation. $100,000 McConnell
NRCS/CO.......................... Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA...................................................................... $282,000 Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Illinois Conservation Initiative, Illinois Department of Natural Resources....................... $576,000 Durbin
NRCS/CO.......................... Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS Kentucky..................................................... $724,000 Bunning and McConnell
NRCS/CO.......................... Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS Mississippi............................................ $2,000,000 Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient Irrigation, CA........................... $150,000 Boxer and Feinstein
NRCS/CO.......................... Nitrate Pollution Reduction, NRCS Rhode Island................................................... $155,000 Reed
NRCS/CO.......................... Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation........................................... $100,000 Chambliss, Cochran, and Graham
NRCS/CO.......................... Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation District............................ $179,000 Leahy
NRCS/CO.......................... Phosphorous Reduction Cooperative Agreement, Kansas Livestock Foundation......................... $1,000,000 Brownback
NRCS/CO.......................... Potomac River Tributary Strategy, NRCS West Virginia............................................. $168,000 Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Riparian Restoration along the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers, New Mexico Association of $200,000 Bingaman
Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
NRCS/CO.......................... Risk Management Initiative, NRCS West Virginia................................................... $673,000 Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Soil Phosphorus Studies, NRCS West Virginia...................................................... $202,000 Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Soil Surveys, NRCS Rhode Island.................................................................. $134,000 Reed
NRCS/CO.......................... Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts, Kentucky Division of $545,000 Bunning and McConnell
Conservation.
NRCS/CO.......................... UMASS-Amherst Ecological Conservation Initiative, MA............................................. $140,000 Kennedy and Kerry
NRCS/CO.......................... Utah Conservation Initiative, NRCS Utah.......................................................... $2,500,000 Bennett
NRCS/CO.......................... Watershed Demonstration Project, Iowa Soybean Association........................................ $134,000 Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Watershed Planning Staff, NRCS Pacific Island Area............................................... $500,000 Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO.......................... Yankee Tank Dam, NRCS Kansas..................................................................... $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts
NRCS/WFPO........................ Ashley Valley Flood Control, Uintah County, UT................................................... $300,000 Hatch
NRCS/WFPO........................ Dry Creek Watershed, City of Rocklin, CA......................................................... $500,000 Feinstein
NRCS/WFPO........................ Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS West Virginia.............................................. $1,500,000 Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................ DuPage County Watershed, IL...................................................................... $1,000,000 Durbin
NRCS/WFPO........................ Lahaina Watershed, NRCS Hawaii................................................................... $1,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................ Lost River, NRCS West Virginia................................................................... $4,000,000 Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................ Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS Hawaii....................................................... $1,800,000 Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................ Missouri Watershed Projects, NRCS Missouri....................................................... $2,000,000 Bond
NRCS/WFPO........................ Pocasset River Watershed, NRCS Rhode Island...................................................... $2,000,000 Reed
NRCS/WFPO........................ Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS Hawaii............................................................ $2,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................ Upper Clark Fork Watershed, Watershed Restoration Coalition, MT.................................. $200,000 Tester
NRCS/WFPO........................ Wailuku-Alenaio, NRCS Hawaii..................................................................... $250,000 Akaka and Inouye
RCDG............................. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for Appropriate Technology, $2,800,000 Baucus, Feinstein, Harkin, Johnson,
Butte, MT. Lincoln, Pryor, Specter, and Tester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2009 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2009
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary....................................... 5,174 5,285 5,285 +111 ................
Office of Tribal Relations.................................... ................ 1,000 1,000 +1,000 ................
Executive Operations:
Office of Chief Economist................................. 10,651 16,732 13,032 +2,381 -3,700
National Appeals Division................................. 14,711 15,559 15,219 +508 -340
Office of Budget and Program Analysis..................... 9,054 9,436 9,436 +382 ................
Office of Homeland Security............................... 974 2,994 1,859 +885 -1,135
Office of Advocacy and Outreach........................... ................ 3,000 ................ ................ -3,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... 17,527 63,579 63,579 +46,052 ................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer..................... 5,954 6,566 6,566 +612 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations............................. 58,871 117,866 109,691 +50,820 -8,175
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights............ 871 895 895 +24 ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 21,551 23,922 23,422 +1,871 -500
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... 687 806 806 +119 ................
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rentalpayments....... (268,244) (346,182) (274,482) (+6,238) (-71,700)
Payments to GSA........................................... 168,901 237,901 168,901 ................ -69,000
Department of Homeland Security........................... 13,500 13,500 13,500 ................ ................
Building operations and maintenance....................... 61,843 94,781 92,081 +30,238 -2,700
Emergency appropriations.............................. 24,000 ................ ................ -24,000 ................
Hazardous materials management................................ 5,100 5,125 5,125 +25 ................
Departmental administration................................... 27,011 43,319 41,319 +14,308 -2,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. 3,877 3,968 3,968 +91 ................
Office of Communications...................................... 9,514 9,922 9,722 +208 -200
Office of the Inspector General............................... 85,766 88,781 88,025 +2,259 -756
Emergency appropriations.................................. 22,500 ................ ................ -22,500 ................
Office of the General Counsel................................. 41,620 44,651 43,551 +1,931 -1,100
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 609 895 895 +286 ................
Economics....................................................
Economic Research Service..................................... 79,500 82,478 82,078 +2,578 -400
National Agricultural Statistics Service...................... 151,565 161,830 161,830 +10,265 ................
Census of Agriculture..................................... (37,265) (37,908) (37,908) (+643) ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,140,406 1,153,368 1,181,632 +41,226 +28,264
Buildings and facilities.................................. 46,752 ................ 47,027 +275 +47,027
Emergency appropriations.............................. 176,000 ................ ................ -176,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service................ 1,363,158 1,153,368 1,228,659 -134,499 +75,291
National Institute of Food and Agriculture:
Research and education activities......................... 691,043 622,892 757,821 +66,778 +134,929
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund............... (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) ................ ................
Extension activities...................................... 474,250 487,005 491,292 +17,042 +4,287
Integrated activities..................................... 56,864 56,864 56,864 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 1,222,157 1,166,761 1,305,977 +83,820 +139,216
Extension Service......................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 737 895 895 +158 ................
Programs.....................................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 876,675 872,423 911,394 +34,719 +38,971
Inspections (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA............ ................ (20,000) ................ ................ (-20,000)
Buildings and facilities.................................. 4,712 4,712 4,712 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....... 881,387 877,135 916,106 +34,719 +38,971
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services........................................ 86,711 90,848 90,848 +4,137 ................
Standardization (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA........ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees (62,888) (64,583) (64,583) (+1,695) ................
collected)...............................................
Permanent, Section 32..................................... 1,169,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 +131,000 ................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply 17,270 20,056 20,056 +2,786 ................
(transfer from section 32)...............................
Commodity purchases support system.................... (10,000) (20,000) (20,000) (+10,000) ................
Payments to States and possessions........................ 1,334 1,334 1,334 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program........... 1,347,203 1,496,821 1,496,821 +149,618 ................
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 40,342 41,964 41,564 +1,222 -400
Limitation on inspection and weighing services............ (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety................. 613 813 813 +200 ................
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................ 971,566 1,018,520 1,018,520 +46,954 ................
Lab accreditation fees.................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing............ 6,536,735 6,608,619 6,776,866 +240,131 +168,247
=========================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 646 895 895 +249 ................
Agricultural Services........................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,170,273 1,253,777 1,253,777 +83,504 ................
Emergency appropriations.............................. 50,000 ................ ................ -50,000 ................
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (348) (355) (355) (+7) ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)............................ (2,736) (2,812) (2,812) (+76) ................
(Transfer from ACIF)...................................... (309,403) (318,173) (313,173) (+3,770) (-5,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts............... (312,487) (321,340) (316,340) (+3,853) (-5,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses............................ (1,532,760) (1,575,117) (1,570,117) (+37,357) (-5,000)
State mediation grants.................................... 4,369 4,369 4,369 ................ ................
Grassroot source water protection program................. 5,000 5,000 5,000 ................ ................
Dairy indemnity program................................... 1,700 930 930 -770 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency........................... 1,231,342 1,264,076 1,264,076 +32,734 ................
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ (222,298) (392,990) (392,990) (+170,692) ................
Emergency appropriations.................. (360,000) ................ ................ (-360,000) ................
Guaranteed.................................... (1,238,768) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (+261,232) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (1,461,066) (1,892,990) (1,892,990) (+431,924) ................
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ (575,095) (700,000) (700,000) (+124,905) ................
Emergency appropriations.................. (573,367) ................ ................ (-573,367) ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (1,017,497) (1,150,000) (1,150,000) (+132,503) ................
Emergency appropriations.................. (50,201) ................ ................ (-50,201) ................
Subsidized guaranteed......................... (269,986) (144,467) (144,467) (-125,519) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (1,862,578) (1,994,467) (1,994,467) (+131,889) ................
Indian tribe land acquisition loans............... (3,940) (2,000) (2,000) (-1,940) ................
Conservation loans:
Direct........................................ ................ (75,000) (75,000) (+75,000) ................
Guaranteed.................................... ................ (75,000) (75,000) (+75,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... ................ (150,000) (150,000) (+150,000) ................
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans............. ................ (10,000) (10,000) (+10,000) ................
Boll weevil eradication loans..................... (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) ................ (+40,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (3,427,584) (4,109,457) (4,149,457) (+721,873) (+40,000)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ 12,715 16,034 16,034 +3,319 ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 22,860 ................ ................ -22,860 ................
Guaranteed.................................... 4,088 5,550 5,550 +1,462 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 39,663 21,584 21,584 -18,079 ................
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ 67,804 33,180 33,180 -34,624 ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 67,600 ................ ................ -67,600 ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 25,336 26,910 26,910 +1,574 ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 1,250 ................ ................ -1,250 ................
Subsidized guaranteed......................... 37,231 20,312 20,312 -16,919 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 199,221 80,402 80,402 -118,819 ................
Indian tribe land acquisition..................... 248 ................ ................ -248 ................
Direct........................................ ................ 1,065 1,065 +1,065 ................
Guaranteed.................................... ................ 278 278 +278 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... ................ 1,343 1,343 +1,343 ................
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans............. ................ 793 793 +793 ................
Individual Development Accounts................... ................ 5,000 ................ ................ -5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 239,132 109,122 104,122 -135,010 -5,000
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)............ 309,403 318,173 313,173 +3,770 -5,000
Administrative expenses........................... 7,920 7,920 7,920 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses............................ 317,323 326,093 321,093 +3,770 -5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund....... 556,455 435,215 425,215 -131,240 -10,000
(Loan authorization)........................ (3,427,584) (4,109,457) (4,149,457) (+721,873) (+40,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Service Agency...................... 1,787,797 1,699,291 1,689,291 -98,506 -10,000
Risk Management Agency, Administrative and operating expenses. 77,177 80,325 79,425 +2,248 -900
=========================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs......................... 1,865,620 1,780,511 1,769,611 -96,009 -10,900
=========================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal crop insurance corporation fund................... 6,582,945 7,502,601 7,502,601 +919,656 ................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses..................... 11,106,324 13,878,054 13,878,054 +2,771,730 ................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)....... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations..................................... 17,689,269 21,380,655 21,380,655 +3,691,386 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs................... 26,091,624 29,769,785 29,927,132 +3,835,508 +157,347
(By transfer)....................................... (312,487) (321,340) (316,340) (+3,853) (-5,000)
(Loan authorization)................................ (3,427,584) (4,109,457) (4,149,457) (+721,873) (+40,000)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)............. (110,351) (112,046) (112,046) (+1,695) ................
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 758 895 895 +137 ................
Environment..................................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations................................... 853,400 867,197 949,577 +96,177 +82,380
Watershed and flood prevention operations................. 24,289 ................ 24,394 +105 +24,394
Emergency appropriations.............................. 290,000 ................ ................ -290,000 ................
Watershed rehabilitation program.......................... 40,000 40,161 40,161 +161 ................
Emergency appropriations.............................. 50,000 ................ ................ -50,000 ................
Resource conservation and development..................... 50,730 ................ ................ -50,730 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service........... 1,308,419 907,358 1,014,132 -294,287 +106,774
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs.................. 1,309,177 908,253 1,015,027 -294,150 +106,774
=========================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development........... 646 895 895 +249 ................
Rural Development:
Rural development expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................. 192,484 195,987 207,237 +14,753 +11,250
(Transfer from RHIF).................................. (460,217) (468,593) (468,593) (+8,376) ................
(Transfer from RDLFP)................................. (4,853) (4,941) (4,941) (+88) ................
(Transfer from RETLP)................................. (39,245) (39,959) (39,959) (+714) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts........... (504,315) (513,493) (513,493) (+9,178) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural development expenses................... (696,799) (709,480) (720,730) (+23,931) (+11,250)
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (sec. 502)................... (1,121,488) (1,121,488) (1,226,501) (+105,013) (+105,013)
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (6,223,859) (6,204,444) (12,000,000) (+5,776,141) (+5,795,556)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family..................... (7,345,347) (7,325,932) (13,226,501) (+5,881,154) (+5,900,569)
Housing repair (sec. 504)......................... (34,410) (34,412) (34,412) (+2) ................
Rental housing (sec. 515)......................... (69,512) (69,512) (69,512) ................ ................
Site loans (sec. 524)............................. (5,045) (5,045) (5,045) ................ ................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........ (129,090) (129,090) (129,090) ................ ................
Multi-family housing credit sales................. (1,447) (1,448) (1,448) (+1) ................
Single family housing credit sales................ (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)........ (4,970) (4,970) (4,970) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (7,599,821) (7,580,409) (13,480,978) (+5,881,157) (+5,900,569)
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (sec. 502)................... 75,364 40,710 44,522 -30,842 +3,812
Emergency appropriations...................... 67,000 ................ ................ -67,000 ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 79,043 89,624 172,800 +93,757 +83,176
Emergency appropriations.................. 133,000 ................ ................ -133,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family................. 354,407 130,334 217,322 -137,085 +86,988
Housing repair (sec. 504)......................... 9,246 4,422 4,422 -4,824 ................
Rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 28,611 18,935 18,935 -9,676 ................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........ 8,082 1,485 1,485 -6,597 ................
Multi-family housing credit sales................. 523 556 556 +33 ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)........ 82 ................ ................ -82 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 400,951 155,732 242,720 -158,231 +86,988
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)......... 460,217 468,593 468,593 +8,376 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program......... 861,168 624,325 711,313 -149,855 +86,988
(Loan authorization)............................ (7,599,821) (7,580,409) (13,480,978) (+5,881,157) (+5,900,569)
=========================================================================================
Rental assistance program:
Rental assistance (Sec. 521).......................... 891,112 1,080,042 968,612 +77,500 -111,430
Eligible households (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))............... 5,958 5,958 5,958 ................ ................
New construction (Sec. 515)........................... 2,030 2,030 2,030 ................ ................
New construction (Farm Labor Housing)................. 3,400 3,400 3,400 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program.................... 902,500 1,091,430 980,000 +77,500 -111,430
Rural housing voucher program............................. 4,965 4,965 18,000 +13,035 +13,035
Multifamily housing revitalization program account........ 19,860 19,860 19,860 ................ ................
Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans.......... 2,889 1,791 1,791 -1,098 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multifamily housing revitalization............... 27,714 26,616 39,651 +11,937 +13,035
Mutual and self-help housing grants....................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ................ ................
Rural housing assistance grants........................... 41,500 41,500 41,500 ................ ................
Farm labor housing program account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (21,678) (21,677) (21,677) (-1) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... 9,135 7,834 7,834 -1,301 ................
Grants................................................ 9,134 9,134 9,134 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Housing Program Account........... 18,269 16,968 16,968 -1,301 ................
Rural community facilities program account:
Loan authorizations:
Community facility:
Direct........................................ (294,948) (294,962) (294,962) (+14) ................
Guaranteed.................................... (206,425) (206,417) (206,417) (-8) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (501,373) (501,379) (501,379) (+6) ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Community facility:
Direct........................................ 16,871 3,864 3,864 -13,007 ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 67,000 ................ ................ -67,000 ................
Guaranteed.................................... 6,358 6,626 6,626 +268 ................
Grants........................................ 20,373 20,373 20,373 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 63,000 ................ ................ -63,000 ................
Rural community development initiative............ 6,256 6,256 6,256 ................ ................
Economic impact initiative grants................. 10,000 13,902 13,902 +3,902 ................
Tribal college grants............................. 3,972 3,972 3,972 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RCP Loan subsidies and grants............ 193,830 54,993 54,993 -138,837 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments................... 292,326 152,188 152,188 -140,138 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service.................... 2,083,708 1,894,559 1,883,152 -200,556 -11,407
(Loan authorization)........................ (8,122,872) (8,103,465) (14,004,034) (+5,881,162) (+5,900,569)
Rural Business--Cooperative Service:
Rural Business Program Account:
(Guaranteed business and industry loans).............. (993,000) (993,002) (993,002) (+2) ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed business and industry subsidy.......... 43,196 52,927 52,927 +9,731 ................
Emergency appropriations...................... 130,000 ................ ................ -130,000 ................
Grants:
Rural business enterprise..................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000 ................
Rural business opportunity.................... 2,483 2,483 2,483 ................ ................
Delta regional authority...................... 2,979 2,979 2,979 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants........ 237,385 97,116 97,116 -140,269 ................
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,536) (33,536) (33,536) ................ ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... 14,035 8,464 8,464 -5,571 ................
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............. 4,853 4,941 4,941 +88 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund.................. 18,888 13,405 13,405 -5,483 ................
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,077) (33,077) (33,077) ................ ................
Rural cooperative development grants:
Cooperative development............................... 4,424 10,424 10,424 +6,000 ................
Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas....... 2,582 2,582 2,800 +218 +218
Cooperative research agreement........................ 300 300 300 ................ ................
Value-added agricultural product market development... 3,867 21,867 21,867 +18,000 ................
Grants to assist minority producers................... 1,463 3,463 3,463 +2,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Cooperative development grants......... 12,636 38,636 38,854 +26,218 +218
Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. ................ (51,522) (51,522) (+51,522) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... ................ 11,000 11,000 +11,000 ................
Grants................................................ ................ 11,000 11,000 +11,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment............. ................ 22,000 22,000 +22,000 ................
Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants. 8,130 ................ ................ -8,130 ................
Rural energy for America:
(Loan authorization).................................. (28,379) (246,334) (246,334) (+217,955) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... 2,750 33,600 33,600 +30,850 ................
Grants................................................ 2,750 34,530 34,530 +31,780 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy program..................... 5,500 68,130 68,130 +62,630 ................
Biorefinery Assistance Program:
(Loan authorization).................................. ................ (48,884) (48,884) (+48,884) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... ................ 17,339 17,339 +17,339 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biorefinery Assistance Program............... ................ 17,339 17,339 +17,339 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Business--Cooperative Service.......... 282,539 256,626 256,844 -25,695 +218
(Loan authorization)............................ (1,087,992) (1,406,355) (1,406,355) (+318,363) ................
=========================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural water and waste disposal program account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct............................................ ................ (1,022,163) (1,022,163) (+1,022,163) ................
Guaranteed........................................ (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorization....................... 75,000 1,097,163 1,097,163 +1,022,163 ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Subsidy and grants................................ 537,278 ................ ................ -537,278 ................
Emergency appropriations...................... 968,000 ................ ................ -968,000 ................
Direct subsidy.................................... ................ 77,071 77,071 +77,071 ................
Emergency appropriations...................... 412,000 ................ ................ -412,000 ................
Water and waste grants............................ ................ 464,228 469,228 +469,228 +5,000
Solid waste management grants..................... ................ 3,441 3,441 +3,441 ................
Water and waste financing revolving fund.......... 497 497 497 ................ ................
Water well system grants.......................... 993 993 993 ................ ................
High energy cost grants........................... 17,500 ................ 17,500 ................ +17,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Water loan subsidies and grants.......... 1,936,268 546,230 568,730 -1,367,538 +22,500
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ ................
Direct, FFB................................... (6,500,000) (6,500,000) (6,500,000) ................ ................
Guaranteed underwriting....................... ................ ................ (500,000) (+500,000) (+500,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.......................... (6,600,000) (6,600,000) (7,100,000) (+500,000) (+500,000)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) ................ ................
Direct, Treasury rate......................... (250,000) (250,000) (250,000) ................ ................
Direct, FFB................................... (295,000) (295,000) (295,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications................ (690,000) (690,000) (690,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (7,290,000) (7,290,000) (7,790,000) (+500,000) (+500,000)
Loan subsidies:
Telecommunications:
Direct, Treasury rate......................... 525 ................ ................ -525 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications................ 525 ................ ................ -525 ................
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)........ 39,245 39,959 39,959 +714 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 39,770 39,959 39,959 +189 ................
Loans Program Account..............................
(Loan authorization)............................ (7,290,000) (7,290,000) (7,790,000) (+500,000) (+500,000)
=========================================================================================
Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Broadband telecommunications...................... (400,487) (531,699) (531,699) (+131,212) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (400,487) (531,699) (531,699) (+131,212) ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Grants........................................ 34,755 29,790 37,755 +3,000 +7,965
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct........................................ 15,619 38,495 38,495 +22,876 ................
Grants........................................ 13,406 13,406 13,406 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations.................. 2,500,000 ................ ................ -2,500,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants........ 2,563,780 81,691 89,656 -2,474,124 +7,965
Broadband loans (rescission).......................... -6,404 ................ ................ +6,404 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service...................... 4,533,414 667,880 698,345 -3,835,069 +30,465
(Loan authorization)............................ (7,765,487) (8,918,862) (9,418,862) (+1,653,375) (+500,000)
=========================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Development Programs........ 7,092,791 3,015,947 3,046,473 -4,046,318 +30,526
(By transfer)................................... (504,315) (513,493) (513,493) (+9,178) ................
(Loan authorization)............................ (16,976,351) (18,428,682) (24,829,251) (+7,852,900) (+6,400,569)
=========================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 610 813 813 +203 ................
Services.....................................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.................................. 8,496,109 10,044,369 10,046,707 +1,550,598 +2,338
Emergency appropriations.......................... 100,000 ................ ................ -100,000 ................
Competitive grants.................................... ................ 5,000 5,000 +5,000 ................
Transfer from section 32.............................. 6,455,802 6,747,877 6,747,877 +292,075 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs..................... 15,051,911 16,797,246 16,799,584 +1,747,673 +2,338
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 6,860,000 7,777,000 7,552,000 +692,000 -225,000
and children [WIC].......................................
Emergency appropriations.............................. 500,000 ................ ................ -500,000 ................
Supplemental nutrition assistance program:
Expenses.............................................. 48,843,897 56,105,314 56,105,314 +7,261,417 ................
Indian reservations [FDPIR]....................... 114,914 112,656 112,656 -2,258 ................
Reserve............................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa........ 1,760,435 1,880,626 1,880,626 +120,191 ................
The emergency food assistance program................. 250,000 253,250 253,250 +3,250 ................
Emergency appropriations.......................... 150,000 ................ ................ -150,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program....................... 54,119,246 61,351,846 61,351,846 +7,232,600 ................
Commodity assistance program:
Commodity supplemental food program................... 160,430 162,818 162,818 +2,388 ................
Farmers market nutrition program...................... 19,800 20,000 20,000 +200 ................
Emergency food assistance program..................... 49,500 49,500 49,500 ................ ................
Pacific island and disaster assistance................ 1,070 1,070 1,070 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity assistance program................. 230,800 233,388 233,388 +2,588 ................
Nutrition programs administration......................... 142,595 150,139 147,801 +5,206 -2,338
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service....................... 76,904,552 86,309,619 86,084,619 +9,180,067 -225,000
=========================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs................. 76,905,162 86,310,432 86,085,432 +9,180,270 -225,000
=========================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 165,436 180,367 180,367 +14,931 ................
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (4,985) (6,465) (6,465) (+1,480) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses program level.............. (170,421) (186,832) (186,832) (+16,411) ................
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level......................................... (1,225,900) (1,690,000) (1,690,000) (+464,100) ................
Appropriation......................................... 1,225,900 1,690,000 1,690,000 +464,100 ................
Emergency appropriations.......................... 395,000 ................ ................ -395,000 ................
Overseas contingency operations................... 700,000 ................ ................ -700,000 ................
Salaries and expenses:
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)................. 2,736 2,812 2,812 +76 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 2,736 2,812 2,812 +76 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level................................... (1,225,900) (1,690,000) (1,690,000) (+464,100) ................
Appropriation................................... 1,228,636 1,692,812 1,692,812 +464,176 ................
=========================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)............... 4,985 6,465 6,465 +1,480 ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)................. 348 355 355 +7 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account............. 5,333 6,820 6,820 +1,487 ................
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child 100,000 199,500 199,500 +99,500 ................
nutrition program grants.....................................
=========================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs. 2,594,405 2,079,499 2,079,499 -514,906 ................
(By transfer)....................................... (4,985) (6,465) (6,465) (+1,480) ................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 2,038,964 2,337,656 2,337,656 +298,692 ................
Prescription drug user fee act............................ (510,665) (578,162) (578,162) (+67,497) ................
Medical device user fee act............................... (52,547) (57,014) (57,014) (+4,467) ................
Animal drug user fee act.................................. (15,260) (17,280) (17,280) (+2,020) ................
Generic animal drug user fees............................. (4,831) (5,106) (5,106) (+275) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (including user fees).......................... (2,622,267) (2,995,218) (2,995,218) (+372,951) ................
New User Fees (Legislative proposals) (NA):
Generic drug user fees................................ ................ (36,000) ................ ................ (-36,000)
Food and Feed Export Certification.................... ................ (4,152) ................ ................ (-4,152)
Reinspection fees..................................... ................ (25,848) ................ ................ (-25,848)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, New User fees (NA)........................ ................ (66,000) ................ ................ (-66,000)
Food Facility Registration and Inspection............. ................ (75,000) ................ ................ (-75,000)
Mammography clinics user fees (outlay savings)............ (19,318) (19,318) (19,318) ................ ................
Export and color certification............................ (10,300) (10,400) (10,400) (+100) ................
Buildings and facilities...................................... 12,433 12,433 12,433 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food & Drug Administration (w/user fees)......... (2,664,318) (3,037,369) (3,037,369) (+373,051) ................
Total, Food and Drug Administration..................... 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 +298,692 ................
=========================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative (49,000) (54,500) (54,500) (+5,500) ................
expenses)....................................................
=========================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 +298,692 ................
Administration.........................................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Denali Commission............................................. 434 ................ ................ -434 ................
Section 32 (rescission)....................................... -293,530 -43,000 -52,000 +241,530 -9,000
Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and facilities ................ -49,885 ................ ................ +49,885
(rescission).................................................
Nat'l Center for Natural Products Research (Sec. 725)......... 3,497 ................ 3,497 ................ +3,497
Hawaii APHIS facility (Sec. 726).............................. 469 ................ 2,600 +2,131 +2,600
Hardwoods Trees (Sec. 728).................................... 794 ................ 800 +6 +800
Hunger Fellowships (Sec. 731)................................. 2,347 ................ 3,000 +653 +3,000
Market development (WI, VT) (Sec. 732)........................ 1,877 ................ 3,000 +1,123 +3,000
Rural Community Out Migration................................. ................ ................ 499 +499 +499
Food Aid Products............................................. ................ ................ 4,000 +4,000 +4,000
Food Bank Infrastructure...................................... ................ ................ 7,000 +7,000 +7,000
Graham Avenue business improvement district (Sec. 732)........ 94 ................ ................ -94 ................
Geographic Disadvantaged...................................... ................ ................ 2,600 +2,600 +2,600
Product Access................................................ ................ ................ 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
Durum Wheat................................................... ................ ................ 4,000 +4,000 +4,000
Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation................................. ................ ................ 250 +250 +250
Specialty market (Sec. 732)................................... 338 ................ 350 +12 +350
Farm Bill Administration (emergency appropriations)........... 4,000 ................ ................ -4,000 ................
Limit Environmental Quality Incentives program................ -270,000 -250,000 -250,000 +20,000 ................
Limit Agriculture management assistance (sec. 1524)........... ................ -5,000 ................ ................ +5,000
Limit wildlife habitat incentives program..................... ................ -43,000 ................ ................ +43,000
Limit farmland protection program............................. ................ -30,000 ................ ................ +30,000
Limit Section 32 (Sec. 723)................................... -52,470 ................ ................ +52,470 ................
Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 723).................. -49,000 ................ -76,000 -27,000 -76,000
Limit healthy forests reserve program......................... ................ -5,000 ................ ................ +5,000
Limit Wetlands Reserve program................................ ................ -184,000 ................ ................ +184,000
Limit Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster ................ -30,000 ................ ................ +30,000
Prevention program...........................................
Limit National Clean Plant Network............................ ................ -5,000 ................ ................ +5,000
Limit Dam Rehab............................................... -165,000 -30,000 -165,000 ................ -135,000
=========================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions.................... -816,150 -674,885 -510,404 +305,746 +164,481
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 (PUBLIC LAW 110-252)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Foreign Agricultural Service
Public Law 480 Title II Grants (emergency).................... 395,000 ................ ................ -395,000 ................
DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY SUPPLEMENTAL (PUBLIC LAW 110-329)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
General Provision
Sec. 20001. Bill Emerson humanitarian trust (emergency)....... 10,000 ................ ................ -10,000 ................
AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT, 2009 (PUBLIC LAW 111-5)
TITLE I--AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Department of Agriculture..................................... 11,329,500 ................ ................ -11,329,500 ................
Rural Housing Service Loan authorizations..................... (11,472,000) ................ ................ (-11,472,000) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Other appropriations............................. 11,734,500 ................ ................ -11,734,500 ................
=========================================================================================
Grand total............................................. 126,962,906 123,759,120 123,993,248 -2,969,658 +234,128
Appropriations.................................. (108,615,130) (123,852,005) (124,045,248) (+15,430,118) (+193,243)
Emergency Appropriations........................ (17,947,710) ................ ................ (-17,947,710) ................
Overseas contingency operations................. (700,000) ................ ................ (-700,000) ................
Rescissions..................................... (-299,934) (-92,885) (-52,000) (+247,934) (+40,885)
(By transfer)................................... (821,787) (841,298) (836,298) (+14,511) (-5,000)
(Loan authorization)............................ (31,875,935) (22,538,139) (28,978,708) (-2,897,227) (+6,440,569)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)......... (159,351) (166,546) (166,546) (+7,195) ................
=========================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs................................ 26,091,624 29,769,785 29,927,132 +3,835,508 +157,347
Mandatory................................................. (18,877,239) (22,701,641) (22,701,641) (+3,824,402) ................
Discretionary............................................. (7,214,385) (7,068,144) (7,225,491) (+11,106) (+157,347)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)............... 1,309,177 908,253 1,015,027 -294,150 +106,774
Title III--Rural development programs (discretionary)......... 7,092,791 3,015,947 3,046,473 -4,046,318 +30,526
Title IV--Domestic food programs.............................. 76,905,162 86,310,432 86,085,432 +9,180,270 -225,000
Mandatory................................................. (68,921,157) (78,144,092) (78,146,430) (+9,225,273) (+2,338)
Discretionary............................................. (7,984,005) (8,166,340) (7,939,002) (-45,003) (-227,338)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs 2,594,405 2,079,499 2,079,499 -514,906 ................
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 +298,692 ................
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary)................. -816,150 -674,885 -510,404 +305,746 +164,481
Other appropriations (discretionary).......................... 11,734,500 ................ ................ -11,734,500 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 126,962,906 123,759,120 123,993,248 -2,969,658 +234,128
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------