Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-116

======================================================================



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

                                _______
                                

 June 27, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Bonilla, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2330]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002.

                                                        SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    FY 2002 recommendation compared with
                                                                  FY 2001            FY 2002           FY 2002     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation \1\      estimates      recommendation        FY 2001            FY 2002
                                                                                                                      appropriation        estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs.............................    $33,249,900,000   $31,636,339,000   $31,769,514,000    -$1,480,386,000      +$133,175,000
Title II--Conservation Programs............................        871,556,000       928,605,000       948,632,000        +77,076,000        +20,027,000
    ACP Rescission.........................................  .................  ................       -45,000,000        -45,000,000        -45,000,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development              2,481,127,000     2,401,520,000     2,488,414,000         +7,287,000        +86,894,000
 Programs..................................................
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs...........................     34,111,685,000    36,629,391,000    36,648,628,000     +2,536,943,000        +19,237,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs...........      1,090,199,000     1,096,953,000     1,106,701,000        +16,502,000         +9,748,000
Title VI--FDA and Related Agencies.........................      1,165,304,000     1,281,304,000     1,288,554,000       +123,250,000         +7,250,000
Title VII--General Provisions..............................         29,945,000         1,996,000       155,000,000       +125,055,000       +153,004,000
Title VIII--Natural Disaster Assistance and Other Emergency      3,638,949,000                 0                 0     -3,638,949,000                  0
 Appropriations............................................
Title X--Anti-Dumping......................................         39,912,000                 0                 0        -39,912,000                  0
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................     76,678,577,000    73,976,108,000    74,360,443,000     -2,318,134,000       +384,335,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$15,669,000,000, which is $3,046,700,000 less than the amount 
available in fiscal year 2001 and $260,214,000 more than the 
budget request.
    In this report, all references to enacted fiscal year 2001 
appropriations levels represent the amounts enacted in Public 
Law 106-387, as reduced by 0.22 percent pursuant to Public Law 
106-554.

                              Introduction

    The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives 
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture 
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of 
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat 
and poultry supply.
    This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our 
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in 
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure 
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than 
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of 
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for all Americans and for 
many more people overseas.
    Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest 
priorities. The bill provides funding for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Office of the Chief Economist, the Economic Research Service, 
the Food and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service for food safety related activities.
    The rural development programs funded in this bill provide 
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic 
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental 
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future 
generations.
    In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous 
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly 
complex market in commodity trading.
    To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and 
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more 
difficult as the effort to preserve the budget surplus 
continues. There are very few program increases in this bill. 
Many of the accounts are at current levels of spending or 
decreased from the previous fiscal year.
    In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by 
allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee's recommended program levels 
are based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on 
mandatory programs.
    Pay Costs.--The Committee's recommendation includes full 
funding to cover 4.6% pay increases for fiscal year 2002, the 
level contained in the conference agreement on the budget 
resolution. Without this funding, agencies would be required to 
reduce the level of services provided in order to cover 
mandatory cost increases.
    Program Priorities/Loan Targeting.--The Committee will 
expect the Department to focus exclusively on economic need 
when attempting to target increased lending under various farm 
loan and rural housing loan and assistance programs.
    Proposed New User Fees.--The budget request assumes the 
establishment of new user fees in the following areas:
           Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
        Animal Welfare Inspections
           Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
        Administration, Grain Standards Development
           Food and Drug Administration:
                   Import Program Operations
                   Food Export Certificates
None of these proposed user fees are currently authorized in 
law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in 
annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should 
they achieve authorization.
    Unauthorized Appropriations Requests.--The Committee 
directs that budget justification materials submitted in 
support of future appropriations requests will contain tabular 
listings of any item that is not authorized by law, in the 
format contained elsewhere in this report under the heading 
``Appropriations Not Authorized by Law''.

                        constitutional authority

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

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

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

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

2001 appropriation .....................................      $2,908,000
2002 budget estimate....................................       2,992,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,015,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................        +107,000
    2002 budget estimate................................         +23,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief 
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of 
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the 
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining 
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the 
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the 
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on 
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
    The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and 
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic 
Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $3,015,000, an increase of $107,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$23,000 above the budget request.
    Plant and animal pest and disease emergencies.--The 
Committee is concerned about the increasing risk to our 
nation's food supply from plant and animal pests and diseases. 
Recent examples include citrus canker in Florida, glassy-winged 
sharpshooter in California, Asian longhorned beetles in 
Illinois and New York, Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies 
throughout the southern United States, and the possibility for 
a foot and mouth disease incursion. The Committee notes that 
the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to declare 
emergencies and to use the resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation for the arrest and eradication of such threats to 
American agriculture. This system has served our country well 
for many years by granting the Secretary the power to make 
virtually unlimited efforts to eliminate emerging pest and 
disease problems before outbreaks expand and become 
unmanageable.
    Criminal acts/terrorist incidents.--The Committee is 
concerned about rising numbers of criminal acts targeting 
animal and plant research facilities. The Secretary is directed 
to report to the Committee on the extent of animal and plant 
terrorism incidents at USDA funded facilities, the consequence 
of these activities on research, recommendations for improving 
security at federally funded facilities, and guidance on the 
appropriate federal role in response to such criminal 
activities. This report shall be submitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on Agriculture of both the 
House and Senate by March 31, 2002.
    Farmers' Market at USDA Headquarters.--The Committee notes 
that the Farmers' Market operating at USDA headquarters in 
Washington, D.C. has been a successful link between farmers and 
consumers, demonstrating the role that USDA can play in 
alternative market structures for producers. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to continue the operation of the USDA 
Farmers' Market in its current location.
    Food Guide Pyramid.--The Committee directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture to study and report within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act on the design of an effective program for elementary 
school children to make use of the Food Guide Pyramid.
    State Office Colocation.--The Committee continues to direct 
that any reallocation of resources related to the colocation of 
state offices scheduled for 2001 and subsequent years is 
subject to the Committee's reprogramming procedures. The 
Committee notes that no such reprogramming requests have been 
received to date.
    Alternative Energy.--The Committee notes that 
notwithstanding the participation of the Secretary of 
Agriculture in the National Energy Policy Development Group, 
the Report of the Group to the President does not call 
sufficient attention to the role of the Department of 
Agriculture in the development of renewable energy sources. The 
Committee urges the Department to continue its strong efforts 
in support of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased renewable 
fuels, and to work to bring these efforts to the forefront of 
public attention. Further, the Committee looks forward to the 
receipt of the report required by FY 2001 appropriations 
legislation from the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, and 
Interior, regarding the feasibility of including ethanol and 
biodiesel as part of the national Strategic Fuels Reserve.
    Agriculture Exhibit at the Smithsonian.--The Committee 
believes that it is important that Americans be given a 
comprehensive impression of the history of American 
agriculture, and its continuing vitality and importance to our 
economy. To that end, the Committee encourages the Secretary to 
work with officials at the American History Museum of the 
Smithsonian Institution to assist that museum in achieving the 
goal to properly portray the key role agriculture plays in our 
country with revisions and improvements to the current exhibit.
    Global Food for Education Initiative.--The Committee 
expects the Secretary of Agriculture to continue in fiscal year 
2002 the Global Food for Education Initiative program 
implemented in fiscal year 2001, at the level implemented in 
fiscal year 2001. The assistance provided under this section 
shall be in addition to other demands for section 416(b) and PL 
480 Title I commodities.
    Computing and Information Technologies Review.--The 
Committee recognizes that U.S. competitiveness in 21st Century 
agriculture will be based on multi-disciplinary research that 
requires the most advanced computing and information 
technologies. The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct a 
review of its advanced computational capabilities, particularly 
in the Agriculture Research Services, the Cooperative State, 
Research, Education and Extension Service and the Economic 
Research Service. The Committee is concerned that the 
department is not keeping pace with other federal agencies both 
in in-house and external research programs. The Committee also 
urges the Secretary to convene a symposium of researchers from 
the leading agricultural universities to identify complex 
agricultural, environmental and natural resource research 
problems that require significant computational resources and 
programming to advance.
    The Committee is concerned that extensive use of 
contracting outside the Department for administrative and core 
mission activities may not yield the best cost benefit or the 
best customer benefit in terms of dealing with experienced 
career federal personnel. Customers of federal programs such as 
those administered by the Rural Development Services and the 
Farm Service Agency often have needs and circumstances that are 
not dealt with in the private sector. The Committee directs the 
Department to make cost comparisons of the use of private 
contractors with federal employee performance and to employ the 
most efficient organization process as described in OMB 
Circular A-76. The Committee also directs the Department to 
solicit input from federal employees in agencies affected by 
contracting out in order to ensure the expertise of those 
employees is a part of any decision made by management. The 
Committee also directs the Department to report on its 
contracting out policies, including the agency budgets for 
contracting out, with its annual budget submission for fiscal 
year 2003.

                          Executive Operations

    Executive Operations was established as a result of the 
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for 
USDA policy officials and selected department-wide services. 
Activities under Executive Operations include the Office of the 
Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office 
of Budget and Program Analysis.

                     Office of the Chief Economist

2001 appropriation....................................        $7,446,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         7,648,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,704,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +258,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +56,000

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture, and 
is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and 
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop 
outlook and situation material within the Department.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $7,704,000, an increase of 
$258,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $56,000 above the budget request.
    Agricultural supply and demand.--The Committee urges the 
Department to work with a qualified entity such as Columbia 
University's International Research Institute for Climate 
Prediction to obtain improved and available tools and 
mechanisms for foreign agricultural supply and demand 
estimates.

                       National Appeals Division

2001 appropriation....................................       $12,394,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        12,766,000
Provided in the bill..................................        12,869,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +475,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +103,000

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the 
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $12,869,000, an increase of $475,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$103,000 above the budget request.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

2001 appropriation....................................        $6,750,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         6,978,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,041,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +291,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +63,000

    The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides 
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary 
functions including development, presentation, and execution of 
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for 
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and 
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of 
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy 
officials and agency program managers in the decision-making 
process; and provides department-wide coordination for and 
participation in the presentation of budget related matters to 
the Committees of the Congress, the media, and interested 
public. The Office also provides department-wide coordination 
of the preparation and processing of regulations and 
legislative programs and reports.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $7,041,000, an increase 
of $291,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $63,000 above the budget request.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer


2001 appropriation....................................       $10,029,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        10,261,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,325,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +296,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +64,000

    Section 808 of P.L. 104-208 required the establishment of a 
Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. Pursuant 
to this Act, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was 
established in August 1996, to provide policy guidance, 
leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department's 
information management and information technology investment 
activities in support of USDA program delivery. The Office 
provides long-range planning guidance, implements measures to 
ensure that technology investments are economical and 
effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources 
Management projects, and implements standards to promote 
information exchange and technical interoperability. The Office 
also provides telecommunications and ADP services to USDA 
agencies through the National Information Technology Center 
with locations in Ft. Collins, Colorado and Kansas City, 
Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to 
the Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, 
Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer and Executive Operations.
    Additionally, the Office of the Chief Information Officer 
is responsible for certain activities under the Department's 
Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $10,325,000, an increase 
of $296,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $64,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to keep 
the Committee updated, on a routine basis, as the information 
risk management and telecommunications programs are 
implemented.

                      Common Computing Environment


2001 appropriation \1\................................       $39,912,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        59,369,000
Provided in the bill..................................        59,369,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +19,457,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

\1\ Excludes $19.5 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  appropriations provided by P.L. 106-387.


    The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use 
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer 
information sharing among agencies of the Department. Section 
808 of P.L. 104-208 requires USDA to maximize the value of 
information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency 
and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in 
1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been 
working to restructure county field offices, modernize and 
integrate business approaches and replace the current, aging 
information systems with a modern Common Computing Environment 
that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff 
efficiencies.

                          committee provisions

    For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $59,369,000, an increase of 
$19,457,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and 
the same amount as the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting 
to the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the 
implementation of the Common Computing Environment.
    Within the amount appropriated, $4,500,000 is for data 
storage infrastructure hardware and software with heterogeneous 
connectivity to all existing USDA information systems and 
applications, and which enables remote mirroring for disaster 
recovery, and of which $1,500,000 is for the same data storage 
technology for the Combined Administrative Management System.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer


2001 appropriation....................................        $5,160,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         5,335,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,384,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +224,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +49,000

    Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief 
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction 
and oversight of the Department's financial management 
operations and systems. The Office supports the Chief Financial 
Officer in carrying out the dual roles of the Chief Financial 
Management Policy Officer and the Chief Financial Management 
Advisor to the Secretary and mission area heads. The Office 
provides leadership, expertise, coordination, and evaluation in 
the development of Department and agency programs for financial 
management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and 
performance measurements. It is also responsible for the 
management and operation of the National Finance Center. The 
Office also provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to 
the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff offices, Office 
of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and 
Executive Operations.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,384,000, an increase 
of $224,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $49,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee has included bill language that directs the 
Chief Financial Officer to actively market and expand the 
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
    The Committee recommends language that allows the Secretary 
to transfer funds provided in this Act and other available 
unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, with the 
approval of the agency administrator, to the Working Capital 
Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and 
information technology services of the National Finance Center 
in New Orleans, LA, and the National Information Technology 
Center in Kansas City, MO and Ft. Collins, CO.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration


2001 appropriation....................................          $628,000
2002 budget estimate..................................           647,000
Provided in the bill..................................           652,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................           +24,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................            +5,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 
and personal property management, ethics, personnel management, 
equal opportunity and civil rights programs, and other general 
administrative functions. Additionally, the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for 
certain activities financed under the Department's Working 
Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$652,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget 
request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


2001 appropriation....................................      $182,345,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       187,581,000
Provided in the bill..................................       187,647,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +5,302,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +66,000

    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to 
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space 
and for related services.
    The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to 
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the 
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to 
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial 
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review 
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an 
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect. The cost 
of newly leased space reflects current private sector market 
rates. The leases are competitively acquired in close 
coordination with USDA and other customer agencies.
    Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the 
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity 
provides departmental staff and support services to operate, 
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since 
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been 
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 
and improving the headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1 
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately 
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately 
8,000 employees. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations of 
the Beltsville Office Facility.
    Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the 
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to 
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, 
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority 
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and 
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To 
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of 
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic 
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building. During FY 1998, 
the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was 
constructed with funds appropriated to the Department and is 
located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. In 
fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations at the Beltsville 
Office Facility.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$187,647,000, an increase of $5,302,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $66,000 above 
the budget request.
    Included in this amount is $130,266,000 for rental payments 
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent 
of this appropriation to or from another agency's 
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will 
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor 
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for 
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not 
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.
    The Committee includes language as requested that allows 
for the reconfiguration and release of space back into the 
General Services Administration inventory in order to reduce 
space rental cost for space not needed for USDA programs. The 
Committee directs that the Appropriations Committees of both 
Houses of Congress shall be notified at least 15 days in 
advance of any proposal to commit or obligate funds for this 
purpose.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account:

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                    2001     2002 budget     Committee
                                  estimate      request   recommendation

Rental Payments...............     $125,266     $130,266        $130,266
Building Operations...........       31,136       31,372          31,438
Strategic Space Plan..........       25,943       25,943          25,943
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................      182,345      187,581         187,647


                     Hazardous Materials Management


2001 appropriation....................................       $15,665,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        15,665,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,665,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................  ................
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet 
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of 
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is 
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for 
hazardous materials in areas covered by the Department or 
within departmental jurisdiction.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $15,665,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the 
budget request.

                      Departmental Administration


2001 appropriation \1\................................       $35,931,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        37,079,000
Provided in the bill..................................        37,398,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +1,467,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +319,000

\1\ Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  provided by P.L. 106-387 which was transferred to the Small Business
  Administration.

    Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that 
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall 
direction and coordination of the Department. These activities 
include department-wide programs for human resource management, 
management improvement, occupational safety and health 
management, real and personal property management, procurement, 
contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply 
management, civil rights, equal opportunity and ethics, 
participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and 
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the Department's 
program activities, emergency preparedness, and the regulatory 
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the 
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. Departmental 
Administration also provides administrative support to the 
Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an independent entity 
within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by 
and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable 
activity.
    Departmental Administration is also responsible for 
representing USDA in the development of government-wide 
policies and initiatives; analyzing the impact of government-
wide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, 
policies, and standards. In addition, Departmental 
Administration engages in strategic planning and evaluating 
programs to ensure Department-wide compliance with applicable 
laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative 
matters for the Secretary and general officers of the 
Department.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $37,398,000, an increase of $1,467,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$319,000 above the budget request.

              Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

2001 appropriation....................................        $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         2,993,000
Provided in the bill..................................         2,993,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................  ................
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV 
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. 
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with 
demonstrated experience in providing education or other 
agriculturally related services to socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible 
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian 
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic serving post-secondary 
education facilities.

                          committee provisions

    For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$2,993,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2001 and the same amount as the budget request.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


2001 appropriation....................................        $3,560,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         3,684,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,718,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +158,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +34,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations maintains liaison with the Congress and White House 
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction 
and coordination in the development and implementation of 
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra 
and inter-governmental relations.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,718,000, an increase of $158,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $34,000 above the 
budget request.
    Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency, 
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution 
of the funds.

                        Office of Communications


2001 appropriation....................................        $8,604,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         8,894,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,975,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +371,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +81,000

    The Office of Communications provides direction, 
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of 
useful information through all media to the public on USDA 
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the 
Department and the many associations and organizations 
representing America's food, fiber, and environmental 
interests.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $8,975,000, an increase of $371,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$81,000 above the budget request.

                      Office of Inspector General


2001 appropriation....................................       $68,715,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        70,839,000
Provided in the bill..................................        71,429,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +2,714,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +590,000

    The Office of Inspector General was established October 12, 
1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This reaffirmed and 
expanded the Office established by Secretary's Memorandum No. 
1915, dated March 23, 1977.
    The Office is administered by an Inspector General who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies, and review 
of existing and proposed legislation and regulations regarding 
the impact such initiatives will have on the economy and 
efficiency of the Department's programs and operations and the 
prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs. 
The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 
with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the 
Department's agencies, and to provide appropriate officials 
with the means for prompt corrective action where deviations 
have occurred. The scope of audit and investigative activities 
is large and includes administrative, program, and criminal 
matters. These activities are coordinated, when appropriate, 
with various audit and investigative agencies of the executive 
and legislative branches of the government.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $71,429,000, an increase of $2,714,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2001, and an 
increase of $590,000 above the budget request.

                     Office of the General Counsel


2001 appropriation \1\................................       $31,012,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        32,627,000
Provided in the bill..................................        32,937,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +1,925,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +310,000

\1\ Excludes $500,000 less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  provided by P.L 106-554.

    The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the 
Office of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law 
office of the Department of Agriculture, and manages all of the 
legal work arising from the activities of the Department. The 
General Counsel represents the Department on administrative 
proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations 
having the force and effect of law; in quasi-judicial hearings 
held in connection with the administration of various programs 
and acts; and in proceedings involving freight rates and 
practices relating to farm commodities. Counsel serves as 
General Counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation and the 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal cases 
arising under the programs of the Department for referral to 
the Department of Justice.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $32,937,000, an increase of 
$1,925,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $310,000 above the budget request.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics


2001 appropriation....................................          $555,000
2002 budget estimate..................................           573,000
Provided in the bill..................................           578,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................           +23,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................            +5,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying 
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural 
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical 
information. The Office has oversight and management 
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics 
Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $578,000, an increase of $23,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 
above the budget request.

                       Economic Research Service


2001 appropriation \1\................................       $66,891,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        67,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................        67,620,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +729,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +420,000
\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $1 million to FPA in the Food and
  Nutrition Service.

    The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic and 
other social science information and analysis for public and 
private decisions on agriculture, food, natural resources, and 
rural America. ERS produces such information for use by the 
general public and to help the executive and legislative 
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and 
rural policies and programs.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $67,620,000, an increase of $729,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$420,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided 
$9,195,000 for food program studies and evaluations work under 
the Economic Research Service and $3,000,000 for food program 
studies under the Food and Nutrition Service.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service


2001 appropriation....................................      $100,550,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       113,786,000
Provided in the bill..................................       114,546,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +13,996,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +760,000

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, state, and county agricultural 
statistics, which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. These statistics provide 
accurate and timely estimates of current agricultural 
production and measures of the economic and environmental 
welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    Beginning with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, funding 
has been provided to NASS for the Census of Agriculture which 
has been transferred from the Department of Commerce to the 
Department of Agriculture to consolidate the activities of the 
two agricultural statistics programs. The Census of Agriculture 
is taken every five years and provides comprehensive data on 
the agricultural economy including: data on the number of 
farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, 
value of land and buildings, farm size, and characteristics of 
farm operators. It provides national, state, and county data as 
well as selected data for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United 
States Virgin Islands.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $114,546,000, an 
increase of $13,996,000 above the amount available in fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $760,000 above the budget request. 
Included in this amount is $25,456,000 for the Census of 
Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture collects and provides 
comprehensive data every five years on all aspects of the 
agricultural economy.
    The budget year is the third year in a five-year funding 
cycle for the Census of Agriculture; Census funding needs are 
cyclical and increase as data collection activities begin.

                     Agricultural Research Service


2001 appropriation....................................      $896,835,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       915,591,000
Provided in the bill..................................       971,365,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +74,530,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................       +55,774,000

    The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on November 2, 1953, under the 
authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 133z-15), 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. 
Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912), ARS includes functions previously 
performed by the Human Nutrition Information Service and the 
National Agricultural Library. ARS conducts basic and applied 
research in the fields of animal sciences, plant sciences, 
entomology, soil, water and air sciences, agricultural 
engineering, utilization and development, human nutrition and 
consumer use, marketing, development of integrated farming 
systems, and development of methods to eradicate narcotic-
producing plants.
    ARS also directs research beneficial to the United States 
which can be advantageously conducted in foreign countries 
through agreements with foreign research institutions and 
universities, using foreign currencies for such purposes. This 
program is carried out under the authority of sections 104(b) 
(1) and (3) of Public Law 480, and the Agricultural Trade 
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended.

                          Committee Provisions

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $971,365,000, an increase of $74,530,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$55,774,000 above the budget request.
    Animal vaccines.--There is a critical need to develop new 
technologies to mitigate the adverse impacts of disease on 
cattle, poultry, and swine. The USDA estimates that the annual 
monetary loss as a result of cattle and swine diarrheal disease 
is $500 million in the U.S. alone. Additionally, USDA estimates 
that food borne pathogens cause between 6.5 million and 33 
million cases of human disease and 9,000 deaths annually. The 
Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for expanded research on advanced animal vaccines and 
diagnostic applications currently carried out jointly by ARS, 
the University of Connecticut, and the University of Missouri.
    Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC).--ARS' National 
Agricultural Library (NAL) operates the Animal Welfare 
Information Center which was established as mandated by the 
1985 Animal Welfare Act, as amended. AWIC is a key component of 
NAL's integrated information services program that enhances 
access to information about animal welfare. The center assists 
researchers and others responsible for the care of laboratory 
animals with important information to enable them to comply 
with the humane standards established under the Animal Welfare 
Act. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal 
year 2002 for expanded animal welfare activities.
    Aquaculture initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic 
Institute.--The Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 for collaborative research between the 
Agricultural Research Service and the Harbor Branch 
Oceanographic Institute, with participation of the Florida 
State University on research to design low-cost energy 
efficient recirculating aquaculture production systems for 
marine species in new environments. This research will expand 
aquaculture of subtropical marine species to inland sites 
throughout the Southeastern U.S. by adapting marine species to 
new environments of fresh water. This research will focus on 
culture technologies, energy efficiency, and design of low-cost 
recirculating systems for intensive aquaculture production.
    Bee research.--The Committee recognizes the important 
research carried out at Weslaco, Texas in control of parasitic 
mites and directs the agency to continue its support of the bee 
research program at the fiscal year 2001 level.
    Binational agriculture research and development.--The 
Committee recognizes the important research carried out through 
the binational agriculture research and development program and 
provides $399,120, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.
    Biobased products and bioenergy.--The development of 
biobased products and bioenergy represents an additional source 
of demand for agricultural products as well as enhanced energy 
security. Ethanol, biodiesel, and other biobased products are 
also necessary to provide products that have environmental 
benefits. The Committee provides $15,000,000 for this research 
as justified in the President's budget. Research to improve 
conversion of agricultural materials to biofuels: Peoria, 
Illinois, $4,800,000; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,200,000; and 
Albany, California, $2,000,000. Develop biobased materials for 
agricultural commodities: Peoria, Illinois, $1,500,000; 
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $1,250,000; and New Orleans, Louisiana, 
$1,250,000. Improve biomass feedstocks for energy: Lincoln, 
Nebraska, $700,000; St. Paul, Minnesota, $400,000; and Madison, 
Wisconsin, $400,000. Sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct crop 
production systems, $1,500,000, to be conducted at El Reno, 
Oklahoma; Tifton, Georgia; Mandan, North Dakota; University 
Park, Pennsylvania; and Corvallis, Oregon.
    Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides $4,500,000 to 
develop bioinformatic tools and provide database support for 
ARS' plant and animal science programs. The research will be 
conducted at Beltsville, Maryland; Ithaca, New York; Clay 
Center, Nebraska; Ames, Iowa; and Stoneville, Mississippi. The 
genomics program will generate information for dairy cattle, 
beef cattle, pigs, and poultry. It will enhance the capacity to 
manage information from the analysis of plant and crop genomes. 
Bioinformatics and database support will be developed for 
soybeans, cotton, corn, maize, and catfish. This effort will 
prove invaluable in developing new technologies that will 
provide more rapid and efficient methods to characterize, 
identify, and manipulate useful properties of genes and 
genomes.
    Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematodes.--The 
Committee recognizes the need for additional research on crop 
pests, particularly soil nematodes. The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 for a cooperative project involving the 
ARS Beltsville research center, private partners and other 
universities for systematic field experiments in major 
nematode-impacted crop production areas.
    Biotechnology Research Development Corporation--BRDC.--BRDC 
is a uniquely successful public/private partnership dedicated 
to promoting technology development and commercialization of 
agricultural technology. The success of this investment can be 
measured by the large number of patents and technology licenses 
of inventions sponsored through BRDC. The Committee is 
providing an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to 
expedite the development and commercialization of agricultural 
technology which will result in an improved farm economy and 
related agribusiness based industries.
    Biotechnology risk assessment.--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 as requested to conduct research which will provide 
early identification of potential risks in deploying biotech 
crops, and data sets that can be used by regulatory agencies to 
assess risk and apply science-based management. The research is 
directed to assessing the risks of lateral gene transfer in the 
environment; preventing the buildup of resistant pest 
populations; and decreasing allergens and increasing 
nutritional qualities of biotech food products. This research 
will be carried out at Beltsville, Maryland; Madison, 
Wisconsin; Albany, California; Ithaca, New York; and West 
Lafayette, Indiana.
    Bovine genetics.--The cattle industry in the U.S. is a $400 
billion annual business. The Committee supports a research 
program on biotechnology and genetics in cattle to be jointly 
carried out by ARS, the University of Connecticut and the 
University of Illinois. This program will utilize advanced 
research technologies to improve efficiency of clones and 
establish cell lines from elite cows and bulls for cloning. The 
Committee provides an increase of $900,000 for these studies.
    Center for Biological Controls, Florida A&M; University.--
The Center for Biological Controls conducts important research 
in the area of biological controls for insects and pests that 
cost agricultural producers millions of dollars in losses 
annually. The Center partners with the USDA in providing 
minority students with the opportunity to engage in cutting 
edge research in agriculture sciences. The Committee provides 
an increase of $250,000 for this joint research.
    Cereal crops research.--The Committee is aware of the 
significant research on the quality and improved production 
practices for barley and oats conducted at the Cereal Crops 
Research Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee 
provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for 
expanded research on these important commodities.
    Chloroplast genetic engineering research.--The Committee is 
aware of research advances at the University of Central Florida 
on chloroplast genetic engineering. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for cooperative 
research with the University of Central Florida to conduct 
research on the efficient and effective means of genetically-
engineering chloroplast to increase efficiency of 
photosynthesis as a key component of agricultural production 
and to reduce the spread of transgenes via pollen flow.
    Coffee and cocoa research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the expansion of 
alternative crop research development with specific emphasis on 
coffee and cocoa. This disease resistance/alternative crop 
research development program is critical in controlling a range 
of domestic and tropical fungal and pest diseases that 
particularly plague coffee and cocoa.
    Continuing Programs.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems 
faced by the Nation's food and fiber producers. In this regard, 
the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to 
continue to fund the following areas of research in fiscal year 
2002 at the same funding level provided in fiscal year 2001: 
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation; Microbial Pathogens in Small 
Watersheds; National Sedimentation Laboratory-Acoustics; 
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory; Soil Tilth Research; Water 
Use Management Technology; Watershed Research; Western 
Grazinglands; Bee Research; Biological Controls and 
Agricultural Research; Cereal Crops Research; Citrus and 
Horticultural Research; Coffee and Cocoa Research; Endophyte 
Research; Floriculture and Nursery Crops Research; Golden 
Nematode; Grape Rootstock; Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research; 
Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Lettuce Geneticist/
Breeder, Salinas, CA; Fusarium Head Blight; Nematology 
Research; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA; Potato 
Research; Rangeland Resource Management; Rice Research; Risk 
Assessment for Bt. Corn; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley; 
Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position; Temperate Fruit Flies; 
U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory; Viticulture 
Research; Animal Vaccines; Aquaculture Fisheries Center; 
Aquaculture Initiative for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands; 
Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute; 
Aquaculture Systems; Asian Bird Influenza; Avian Pneumovirus; 
Catfish Genome; Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus; Mosquito 
Trapping Research and West Nile Virus; Poultry Enterititis-
Mortality Syndrome (PEMS); Poultry Diseases; Aflatoxin in 
Cotton; Cotton Ginning Research; Post-harvest and Controlled 
Atmosphere Chamber; Barley Food Health Benefits Research.
    Dairy genetics research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the Animal 
Improvement Research Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland for 
increased research on dairy cattle genetics and to undertake 
research related to reproductive health. This research will 
include the maintenance of a national database for genetic 
research on milk yield, composition, and fitness traits; 
improved methods of comparing genetic evaluations across 
countries, and determine economic values of health and 
reproductive traits.
    Diet and immune function research.--Infectious diseases are 
a major cause of mortality and morbidity in all segments of the 
population. Nutritional imbalances can lead to impaired immune 
response. Additional research is needed to determine the 
effects of diet on the immune system and whether infectious 
agents can alter their pathogenicity in response to the diet of 
the host. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for 
this research to be conducted at the ARS nutrition center at 
Little Rock, Arkansas.
    Dryland production research.--The Committee is aware that 
the ARS Central Great Plains Research Station is the only 
Federal research station engaged at solving the dryland 
production problems in the four-state region encompassing 
eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, western Kansas, and 
southeastern Wyoming covering approximately 55 million acres of 
which one-half are non-irrigated cropland. Technology developed 
at the Station is critical to dryland crop producers of the 
region. An increase of $300,000 is provided in fiscal year 2002 
to the ARS Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron, 
Colorado to implement innovative crop rotation systems and 
reduce tillage practices and improve crop yields, while 
minimizing weed, disease, and insect damage.
    Emerging diseases of animals.--The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 as requested for research on bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) to establish the nature and transmission 
of BSE; detection and diagnosis of this disease; and safe 
disposal of carcasses. The research will determine the 
causative agent of BSE and determine the factors that allow 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies to cross species 
barriers. Research will be conducted to improve diagnostic 
tests for rapid detection of BSE agents in blood or tissues and 
in feed and foods of animal origin.
    Emerging diseases of crops.--Continued development of 
pathogen detection, exclusion, and quarantine treatment 
technologies is important to keep new diseases from becoming 
established in the U.S. The Committee acknowledges the need for 
research to improve genetic resistance to diseases in plants, 
biocontrol to replace synthetic pesticides; and more accurate 
methods of pathogen identification and detection. The Committee 
provides $1,282,000 for this research, to be carried out in 
Raleigh, North Carolina; Ft. Detrick, Maryland; Fargo, North 
Dakota; and College Station, Texas.
    Ergot research.--Ergot is a major fungus disease of 
sorghum. The disease has spread rapidly since it was first 
recognized in Brazil in 1995. Currently grown sorghum varieties 
have little resistance to this fungus. While the Agricultural 
Research Service has a research program to combat this disease, 
greater effort is required. ARS carries out sorghum related 
research at numerous locations, but in many instances the 
research is not of sufficient effort to contribute to the 
solution of the problems associated with sorghum in the U.S. 
The Committee directs that ARS collect and focus $300,000 of 
these funds at Lincoln, Nebraska, to combat the spread of ergot 
disease.
    Floriculture and nursery research.--Floriculture and 
nursery crops represent more than 10% of the total U.S. crop 
cash receipts while environmental horticulture is the third 
largest value crop in the U.S. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, with a portion 
allocated through cooperative agreements to university partners 
including Cornell University, University of California, and 
Ohio State University.
    Food safety for Listeria and E. coli.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to 
continue research on the control and prevention of Listeria 
monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and E. 
coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products.
    Formosan subterranean termite.--The exotic Formosan 
Subterranean termite costs the U.S. one billion dollars each 
year. It is particularly damaging in the Greater New Orleans 
area, along the Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. The Committee is aware 
that ARS scientists, in cooperation with scientists from 
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the City of 
New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board successfully 
demonstrated in a 15-block New Orleans French Quarter test that 
populations of the termite can be dramatically reduced on an 
area-wide basis by the use of detection and baiting 
technologies. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 
in fiscal year 2002 to the Southern Regional Research Center at 
New Orleans, Louisiana to expand the 15-block test to encompass 
the entire 108-block area of the historically and economically 
important French Quarter. New information and technologies 
gained from this expanded test will be used to increase the 
effectiveness of area-wide programs in other parts of Louisiana 
and other states.
    Foundry sand by-products utilization.--The Committee 
recognizes the potential for the use of foundry sand by-
products as soil amendment or components of blended materials 
including composts for agricultural applications. The Committee 
provides an increase of $600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable 
ARS and university/industry partners to evaluate the beneficial 
uses of foundry sand in agriculture and horticulture. Benefits 
and risks of using foundry sand will be determined and 
management practices will be developed. Research will also be 
conducted to determine if trace elements in the foundry sand 
pose a risk to human health or water quality.
    Ft. Pierce horticultural research laboratory.--The 
Committee is aware that this recently completed horticultural 
research laboratory is operating significantly below authorized 
staffing levels. This laboratory carries out critical research 
on citrus, fruits, and vegetables and nursery crops. The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for the U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, 
Florida for increased staffing needs.
    Ginning technologies.--The Committee directs that research 
carried out by ARS in cotton ginning harvesting and the 
development of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal 
year 2001 funding levels.
    Golden nematode.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$50,000 in fiscal year 2002 to Cornell University to continue 
golden nematode research in plant breeding, nematology, and 
activities involving seed production and extension.
    Grape rootstock.--Grapes are the highest value fruit crop 
in the U.S. and sixth largest crop overall. Increased grape 
research is needed to sustain this crop which is processed into 
raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby adding enormous value 
to the crop. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 for expanded grape rootstock research at 
Geneva, New York.
    Great Basin rangelands.--The Committee acknowledges the 
need to provide support for the rangelands of the Great Basin 
area. The Agricultural Research Service carries out 
investigations to control infestations such as medusahead, 
Canadian thistle, Russian knapweed, and many other existing and 
invasive weeds. Research is conducted on management of 
rangelands, including conservation, restoration, and 
sustainable utilization. Research is also carried out to 
develop predictive models of basin-scale hydrologic systems. 
The Committee provides an addition of $750,000 for research to 
be conducted at ARS laboratories at Reno, Nevada; Burns, 
Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.
    Honey bee research.--Pollination by honey bees in the U.S. 
is valued at $10 billion per year, but the viability of 
commercial honey bee pollination and honey production as well 
as survival of wild honey bees (free pollination) is threatened 
by two exotic parasitic mites--the Varroa and tracheal mites. 
New chemical treatments, including an evaluation of natural 
product chemicals for these mites, are urgently needed because 
current chemical treatments have been rendered ineffective by 
the mites' ability to become resistant. Long-term control of 
the mites will be achieved through the selection of honey bees 
resistant to the mites. ARS scientists at Baton Rouge, LA, have 
developed honey bees genetically resistant to the mites, as 
well as possessing excellent handling characteristics, honey 
production, and winter survival. Breeding, selection, and 
distribution of these resistant honey bees to the industry must 
be accelerated. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 
to continue this research at the ARS honey bee facility at 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
    Hops research.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
increase in U.S. hops production with exports to over 80 
countries worldwide. The Committee also recognizes the 
important contribution of research to U.S. hop growers in 
competing successfully with European hop growers for domestic 
and international markets. The Committee provides an increase 
of $200,000 for increased research required by U.S. hop growers 
to remain competitive in the domestic and world markets as well 
as in controlling new and emerging diseases affecting hops.
    Improved animal waste management practices.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS 
Florence, SC research station for expanded research on improved 
manure management practices for producers in the Southeastern 
U.S. This station develops improved treatment technologies and 
systems to enable producers to manage animal waste from swine 
production to protect water and air quality.
    Improved crop production practices.--The drought of 2000 
caused disastrous losses to row crops in the mid-south and 
southeast. In Alabama alone, losses amounted to $329 million. 
Studies have shown that farmers using conservation-tillage, 
water-thrifty cropping systems, and other soil sustaining 
production practices in concert with new technologies, such as 
global positioning systems, geographic information systems, and 
remote sensing, can reduce drought-related risks and production 
costs. The Committee provides an increase of $800,000 in fiscal 
year 2002 for expanded research at the ARS Soil Dynamics 
Research Unit in Auburn, Alabama, and Auburn University.
    Invasive species.--Invasive weeds and other pests species 
cost the U.S. over $122 billion per year. Weeds such as leafy 
spurge, melaleuca, old world climbing fern, giant Salvinia, 
salt cedar, hydrilla, water hyacinth, yellow starthistle, downy 
brome, Brazilian pepper, jointed goat grass, purple 
loosestrife, and many others infest at least 100 million acres 
in the United States which increase 8 to 20 percent annually. 
The Committee supports research that will result in greater 
exclusion of potential invasive species, quicker detection and 
more effective eradication of new invading species. The 
Committee provides an increase of $3,500,000 for this research 
on the systematics of invasive weeds and insects; the 
development of new biological information and species 
discovery; and the development of integrated weed management 
systems. This research will be conducted at ARS laboratories in 
Beltsville, Maryland; Davis, California; Ft. Pierce, Florida; 
Montpellier, France; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Urbana, Illinois; 
Ithaca, New York; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, as recommended in the 
budget. The Committee directs that $500,000 be utilized for a 
cooperative research program with the Connecticut Agriculture 
Experiment Station in New Haven for controlling aquatic weeds 
seriously threatening the health of many of Connecticut's 
lakes.
    Jornada Experimental Range Research Station.--Congress 
supported the design and construction of a replacement facility 
at the Jornada Experimental Range Research Station. The 
facility will be completed in fiscal year 2002. The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 to provide for needed research 
equipment for operations at this new research station.
    Livestock and range research.--Range livestock production 
requires new, innovative strategies to meet the challenges of 
land use management, environmental quality and economic 
sustainability. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 
for fiscal year 2002 to support this research effort at the 
Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, 
Montana.
    Manure management research.--There is a need for 
nutritional technology to reduce odor excretion in swine while 
increasing efficient digestion of dietary nutrients. In 
addition, an integrated system research effort to develop swine 
production systems that reduces odor, nutrients, and pathogen 
problems associated with manure is likewise needed. The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for the ARS swine waste management program based at the 
National Swine Research Center, Ames, Iowa.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee has been made aware that new 
information may be available concerning the impact of methyl 
bromide on the ozone layer. In view of the adverse economic 
impact that the current phase-out schedule is having on the 
farmer and the food industry, the Committee urges the 
Department to convene a panel of scientists who specialize in 
this area to reexamine the science and report its findings as 
soon as possible.
    Mid-Atlantic highlands aquaculture initiatives.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for ARS cooperative research on aquaculture initiatives with 
the Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) headquartered at Canaan 
Valley, West Virginia. CVI provides a forum where small 
watershed groups, government, industry, and the research 
community can address economic development issues affecting the 
mid-Atlantic highland states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
Virginia, and West Virginia.
    Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation.--While irrigation is 
normally associated with the arid, western part of the U.S., 
the fastest growing irrigation states are found in the Mid-West 
and the Mid-South. The need for irrigation in these areas is 
critical in reducing production risks, increase producer 
yields, promote good land management practices, and reduce 
input costs. The Committee provides an increase of $130,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 for cooperative research into irrigation 
methods and technologies with the Delta Center, University of 
Missouri at Portageville, Missouri.
    Minor use pesticides (IR-4).--Meeting the challenges of 
pest management for minor crops is a major problem in rural 
America. Pest control product registrations are critical to 
minor crop agriculture. However, the crop production industry 
has little incentive to pursue such registrations because of 
small acreage and low return of investment. This program 
produces research data for clearances for pest control products 
on minor food and ornamental crops and supports the FQPA. The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for this research.
    National germplasm resources program.--The Committee is 
aware of the important research carried out under the ARS 
National Genetics Resources Program. The research effort to 
collect, maintain, characterize, evaluate and enhance the 
germplasm is essential to agriculture and a critical component 
of the ARS mission. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for plant germplasm research at 
College Station, Texas; Griffin, Georgia; Miami, Florida; 
Pullman, Washington; Ames, Iowa; and Urbana, Illinois. Under 
the National Genetic Resources Program, Congress authorized the 
National Animal Germplasm Program to evaluate, collect and 
store germplasm, DNA and other tissues for preservation and 
utilization of genetic resources. ARS, academia (land grant and 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities), and industry are 
all involved in this program. The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for this research at 
Fort Collins, Colorado.
    Northwest small fruits research.--The Committee 
acknowledges the long-standing and productive investigations 
carried out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, Oregon. 
The research is concentrated on genetic improvements and 
germplasm evaluations for many varieties of small fruits. This 
research benefits small fruit industries throughout the Pacific 
Northwest. An addition of $300,000 is provided for fiscal year 
2002.
    Nutritional requirements research.--Nutrition requirements 
begin in utero, and are affected by the mothers dietary intake. 
These requirements continue throughout life. Although nutrient 
requirements differ at various stages of life, there is a lack 
of understanding as to the specific nutritional needs at each 
life stage. This research would lead to a better understanding 
of how dietary factors affect growth and development, and the 
onset of chronic diseases. The Committee provides an increase 
of $500,000 for these studies to be conducted at the ARS human 
nutrition center at Houston, Texas.
    Nutrition Monitoring.--Nutrition monitoring activities are 
vital to shaping policies for food safety, child nutrition, 
food assistance, and dietary guidance. While the Committee 
suports the process underway to integrate the National Health 
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the 
Department of Health and Human Services and the Continuing 
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by 
USDA, it is concerned the USDA has failed to continue to 
conduct the CSFII in 2000 and 2001 as the integration process 
continues.
    Olive fruitfly research.--The olive fruitfly is the world's 
number one pest of olives, causing devastating effects on the 
$66 million olive industry in California. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for 
increased research on the trap monitoring detection program and 
the integrated pest management program to control the olive 
fruitfly. Expanded research will be implemented at the 
Horticultural Research Laboratory, Parlier, CA; and the 
European Biological Control Laboratory, Montpellier, France.
    Pathogens for biological control.--The Committee 
acknowledges the need to expand efforts in biological control 
of insects and weeds. Investigations will be undertaken to 
develop biologically based weed and arthropod integrated pest 
management (IPM), with emphasis on formulation and delivery of 
plant pathogen agents, fungal agents, microbial agents, and 
effective insect control agents. Weeds such as salt cedar, 
leafy spurge, melaleuca; and insects and mites such as 
whiteflies, Russian wheat aphid, and glassy-winged sharpshooter 
are high priority targets for IPM. The Committee concurs with 
the budget recommendation to provide $1,500,000 for this 
research to be carried out at Weslaco, Texas; Yakima, 
Washington; Stoneville, MS; and Brisbane, Australia.
    Pay act costs.--The Committee provides funding for 
increased costs associated with Federal employees salaries and 
benefits.
    Pecan scab research.--Pecan scab is considered the most 
serious disease threat to pecan production in the humid 
southeastern U.S. Recent discoveries indicating the persistence 
of pecan fungicides have complicated the task of developing 
effective disease control. The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Southeastern Fruit 
and Tree Nut Research Laboratory at Byron, Georgia to expand 
research efforts on the introduction and evaluation of new 
technology for fungicide application, increased knowledge of 
pathogens, orchard management and disease control.
    Pierce's disease.--The Committee is aware that in the last 
18 months, the highly virulent disease known as Pierce's 
Disease and its vector the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (PD-GWSS) 
has devastated vineyards in Southern California and established 
strongholds in several other premium growing areas threatening 
the entire grape and wine industry. Several other commodities 
have been impacted because they serve as hosts of the glassy-
winged sharpshooters. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have 
costly requirements for inspection and treatment regimens to 
curb the spread of PD-GWSS. International trade has also been 
restricted as Australia recently banned imports of California 
grapes over fears of Pierce's Disease. The Committee provides 
an increase of $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to enable the ARS 
center at Parlier to move aggressively and effectively against 
this serious pest/disease combination threat to the economic 
viability of many crops in California. The Committee directs 
that $600,000 of the increase support new scientist positions 
at Davis, California, and Ft. Pierce, Florida.
    Plant stress and water conservation research.--The 
Committee is aware of the staffing needs at the new U.S. Plant 
Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX. 
Increased research is required to develop strategies to 
alleviate the impacts of temperature stress and water deficits 
on plant performance, improve the efficient use of available 
water supplies for dryland and irrigated production systems, 
and research production strategies to enhance the entire soil-
plant-water relationship. An increase of $750,000 is provided 
in fiscal year 2002 for staffing needs of the U.S. Plant Stress 
and Water Conservation Laboratory.
    Poultry diseases.--The Committee is aware that research on 
poultry diseases is critical to national and international 
competitiveness of animal agriculture and that poultry diseases 
are a limiting factor to the expansion of U.S. poultry exports. 
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for fiscal year 
2002 for increased research on Avian coccidiosis, an intestinal 
parasitic disease which is responsible for estimated losses of 
over $300 million annually. The Committee also provides an 
increase of $150,000 for increased research to help accelerate 
effective avian pneumovirus disease treatment and vaccine 
development.
    Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest.--
The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 for the ARS 
Southwest Watershed Research Center at Tucson, Arizona, and 
directs ARS to cooperate with a consortium of 16 local, state, 
Federal and NGO's of the Upper San Pedro Partnership to provide 
research, hydro-ecological modeling, and specialized field 
experimental campaigns to more accurately quantify components 
of a basin's water budget to support local and community based 
watershed management.
    Rangeland resources research.--The Committee is aware that 
ARS High Plains Grassland Research Station at Cheyenne, Wyoming 
is a leader in the fields of grazing practices, carbon cycling, 
reclamation of disturbed mineland and general rangeland 
ecology. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 to support this important rangeland resources 
research program at the station.
    Residue management in sugarcane.--Current systems for 
sugarcane production in Louisiana include the practice of 
burning the crop residue after the sugarcane has been 
harvested. To meet current air quality regulations and 
additional environmental restrictions anticipated in the 
future, research is urgently needed to develop sugarcane 
productions systems that do not include residue burning. 
Residue management strategies must be evaluated for their 
impact on sugarcane production, runoff, water quality, nutrient 
and pesticide transport and retention in the soil profile, and 
on soil physical properties. The Committee provides an increase 
of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane Research 
Unit at Houma, Louisiana and the ARS Soil and Water Research 
Unit at Baton Rouge, Louisiana to develop Best Management 
Practices (BMP) to ensure the economic production of sugarcane 
without adverse environmental damage.
    Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the need for 
additional research to help keep the U.S. rice industry 
competitive in the global marketplace by assuring high yields, 
superior grain quality, pest resistance, and stress tolerance. 
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for this 
research to be carried out at the ARS center in Stuttgart, 
Arkansas.
    Seismic and acoustic technologies in soil research.--New 
acoustic and seismic technologies open the path for improved 
and more efficient crop production practices. Use of these new 
technologies to characterize soils, detect hard pan levels, 
assess water content, and other applications must be 
accelerated to reduce crop production costs and conserve 
energy, water, and soil. The Committee provides an increase of 
$300,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS National Sedimentation 
Laboratory at Oxford, Mississippi to accelerate research in 
this area.
    Sorghum research.--Sorghum is an important grain crop in 
the U.S. and worldwide. In 1999, the estimated value of sorghum 
in the U.S. was $1.7 billion. In terms of grain and oilseed 
crops, sorghum follows corn, soybeans and wheat. Additional 
research is needed to enhance the economic viability of this 
crop in the development of alternative uses; pest resistance, 
soils research and fundamental genetic and molecular research 
on drought and temperature stress. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,950,000 for sorghum utilization research at 
Manhattan, Kansas, $250,000; genetics and breeding at 
Stillwater, Oklahoma, $250,000; soil and water related research 
at Bushland, Texas, $200,000; and to establish molecular/
genetic research to address fundamental issues of drought and 
temperature stress at Lubbock, Texas, $1,250,000.
    Source Water Protective Initiatives.--The Committee 
recognizes agricultural and environmental water quality issues 
related to water movement through agricultural drainage systems 
serving as conduits for movement of pollutants into surface 
water systems. The management of subsurface or groundwater flow 
can have a major effect on pesticides and soil erosion. The 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to the Soil Drainage 
Research Unit in Columbus, Ohio to implement the Source Water 
Protective Initiative in the Upper Big Walnut Creek Watershed. 
The Committee also provides an increase of $300,000 to the 
National Soil Erosion Laboratory in West Lafayette, Indiana, to 
implement the Source Water Protective Initiative in the St. 
Joseph River Watershed to address the problem of surface runoff 
and transport of sediment and agricultural chemicals and 
nutrients from fields and agricultural lands.
    Southwest pecan research.--Pecan is the most valuable 
native North American nut crop. The Committee recognizes the 
need to strengthen research to increase pecan production. This 
research emphasizes development of improved cultivars and 
rootstocks; collection and maintenance of germplasm, and 
development of host plant resistance to control pecan insects 
and diseases. An addition of $300,000 is provided in fiscal 
year 2002 for this research, which is conducted at the College 
Station and Brownwood, Texas, research stations.
    Soybean and nitrogen fixation.--The ARS Soybean and 
Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina, has been 
widely recognized for its work in developing higher-value 
soybeans that improve profitability for farmers. Scientists at 
this laboratory require additional resources in their efforts 
to develop new varieties that have drought tolerance and 
improved oil and protein quality. The Committee provides an 
increase of $400,000 for this research.
    Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center.--The 
Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center benefits the 
aquaculture industry enormously with its research on disease 
control production improvements, stress tolerance, and food 
quality. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 to expand the research carried out at this 
aquaculture center.
    Sudden Oak disease.--Since 1995, oak trees have been dying 
in large numbers along the California and Oregon coasts. The 
disease has spread to other plants including rhododendron and 
huckleberry. There is great potential for this disease to 
spread throughout the country. The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 to conduct research to identify causative 
agents and diagnostic tools. The primary focus of this research 
is the ARS Ft. Detrick research laboratory.
    Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the 
importance of the sugarbeet research at Ft. Collins, Colorado. 
The Committee directs the ARS to fund this project at the 
fiscal year 2001 level.
    Sugarcane variety research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the ARS Sugarcane 
Research Station at Canal Point, Florida. There funds will be 
used toward strengthening and expanding the breeding, 
pathology, and soil conservation projects currently in 
progress. This ARS station provides the necessary breed stock 
for sugarcane growers in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.
    Sustainable vineyards practices position.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 for the sustainable vineyards 
practices position at UC-Davis. This research position will be 
responsible for the development of biologically and 
environmentally sound practices for grape growing which enhance 
compatibility with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.
    U.S. National Arboretum.--The U.S. National Arboretum's 
Gardens Unit is responsible for maintaining the garden 
displays, collections, and grounds of the 446 acre campus in 
northeast Washington, D.C. The collections include valuable 
germplasm of species and cultivated plants that are used by 
researchers, the ornamental horticultural trade, gardeners, and 
the general public throughout the country. The Committee 
provides an increase of $325,000 to maintain, document and 
distribute germplasm and increase efforts to disseminate 
information on ornamental horticulture.
    Vaccines and microbe control for fish health.--Diseases and 
toxins produced by algae and microbes in the water are the most 
serious problems affecting the billion dollar fish farming 
industry, including channel catfish. Stressful conditions 
caused by factors such as crowding and high feeding levels to 
increase growth rates act to suppress the resistance of fish to 
disease. Farmers lack preventive methods to combat the diseases 
and toxins. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 to the ARS Fish Diseases and Parasites 
Research Unit at Auburn, Alabama in collaboration with Auburn 
University for problem-focused research urgently needed to 
develop vaccines that safely and effectively prevent diseases 
and toxicity, and identify gene resistance of fish to disease 
and toxicity.
    Virus diseases of vegetables.--The Committee recognizes the 
need to increase research efforts to determine the etiology and 
epidemiology of emerging virus diseases of vegetables. Research 
will focus on virus-resistant vegetable germplasm and 
development of integrated disease control methods. The 
Committee provides $500,000 to the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory at 
Charleston, South Carolina, as requested.
    Viticulture research.--The Committee is aware of the 
importance of the grape and wine industry in the Pacific 
Northwest and of the work being conducted by ARS in cooperation 
with the University of Idaho. The Committee provides an 
additional $150,000 to ARS for expanded research in fiscal year 
2002.
    Water resources management research.--Water quality and 
water resource management continue to be priority issues for 
agriculture and the environment. Research is needed to enhance 
water management initiatives regionally and nationally. The 
Committee concurs with the need to investigate the network of 
stream flow, precipitation, groundwater, water quality, and 
land use information for the entire Suwannee River Basin. The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for the Southeast 
Watershed Research Laboratory to carry out this research in 
cooperation with the University of Georgia and the Suwannee 
River Water Management District. In addition, new technologies 
to improve water use efficiency and quality at both a state and 
watershed scale should be expedited. The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the ARS research 
station at Tifton, GA, for this work. This increase will be 
used to advance the discovery and use of economical precision 
water application technologies for water conservation and water 
quality and to develop accurate source, impact and solution 
information on water quality concerns related to total maximum 
daily loading (TMDL's) of critical streams in the region.
    Wheat quality research.--The Committee supports ARS' 
ongoing wheat research program, and recognizes the need for 
additional research to improve competitiveness and export 
quality in hard wheat, club wheat, durum wheat, soft red wheat, 
and white wheat. The Committee provides an additional 
$1,000,000 for this research to be carried out at the ARS 
research locations in Pullman, Washington; Wooster, Ohio; 
Manhattan, Kansas; and Fargo, North Dakota.
    Wild rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$50,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the wild rice breeding and 
germplasm improvement cooperative project directed at the ARS 
research station in St. Paul, Minnesota.
    Woody ornamental genomics and breeding for the Southeast.--
Ornamental horticulture is valued at $11 billion annually in 
farm gate receipts. Expansion of this industry in Tennessee and 
other Appalachian States would help offset the declining value 
of other traditional agricultural products such as tobacco, 
dairying, and feed grain. However, profitable expansion of 
ornamental horticulture is impeded by insect, disease, and 
nematode pests, which also cause extensive chemical usage. The 
Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 
for cooperative research with the ARS research station at 
Poplarville, Mississippi, and the University of Tennessee 
Institute of Agriculture.
    Seed Stock.--The Committee is concerned that as more 
ownership of seed stock rests in private rather than in the 
public domain, the ability to maintain an inventory of stock 
for future national needs becomes more difficult. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide a report in advance of the 
fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the scope and condition of 
known collections of seed stocks in the United States and 
around the world, what steps are being taken to identify and 
catalogue privately and publicly held seed stock and where such 
stock might be reposited. Further, this report shall also 
detail the ability and limits faced by the Department in 
developing new seed stock varieties for American agriculture, 
and what might be the most critical immediate and medium term 
needs to assure the broadest representation of germplasm in 
seed stocks over which the United States can maintain access 
and assure quality.

                        Buildings and Facilities

2001 appropriation....................................       $74,037,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        30,462,000
Provided in the bill..................................        78,862,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +4,825,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................       +48,400,000

    The ARS Buildings and Facilities account was established 
for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
facilities which directly or indirectly support research and 
extension programs of the Department. Routine facilities 
maintenance, construction or replacement items would continue 
to be funded under the limitations contained in the regular 
account.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$78,862,000, an increase of $4,825,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $48,400,000 
above the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 2002     Committee
                                                  estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Arizona:
    U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton            0       $8,400
     Laboratories, Maricopa...................
California:
    Western Regional Research Center, Albany..       $3,800        3,800
    Western Human Nutrition Research Center,          5,000        5,000
     Davis....................................
District of Columbia:
    U.S. National Arboretum...................        4,600        4,600
Illinois:
    Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria.        6,500        6,500
Iowa:
    USDA Facility Consolidation and                       0       40,000
     Modernization, Ames......................
Maryland:
    National Agricultural Library, Beltsville.        1,800        1,800
New York:
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center,                3,762        3,762
     Greenport................................
Pennsylvania:
    Eastern Regional Research Center,                 5,000        5,000
     Philadelphia.............................
                                               -------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.........       30,462       78,862
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. Water Conservation and Western Cotton Research 
Laboratories.--The U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory (USWCL) 
was constructed in 1959. The USWCL conducts research to 
increase water use efficiency in agricultural production for 
the irrigated West and to conserve and improve the quantity and 
quality of our Nation's water supplies. The Western Cotton 
Research Laboratory (WCRL) was constructed in 1971. The WCRL 
conducts research to increase the efficiency of producing 
cotton in the irrigated West to ensure that U.S. cotton will be 
competitive in both price and quality in the world market. The 
ARS laboratories in Phoenix utilized an adjacent University of 
Arizona research farm to conduct large scale field plot 
experiments essential to support the water conservation and 
cotton production research programs. The University established 
a new large farming and research facility near Maricopa. Due to 
the unavailability of field plot land near the Phoenix 
location, the ARS researchers must now travel about 28 miles to 
the Maricopa Agricultural Center (MAC) to conduct their field 
experiments. Existing facilities require extensive renovation 
and repair to meet safety and health codes and to provide 
modernized research facilities. To date $7,285,000 has been 
appropriated for new facilities. The Committee provides an 
additional $8,400,000 toward the design and construction 
requirements of the replacement facilities at Maricopa.
    USDA Facility Consolidation and Modernization.--The 
Department has developed a master plan to construct new animal 
facilities to replace and modernize the National Animal Disease 
Center (NADC), the National Veterinary Service Laboratories 
(NVSL), and the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB), which 
are all located in Ames, Iowa.
    Together, these three operations occupy a 480 acre site and 
are housed in 103 buildings with 750,000 square feet of space. 
There are 548 total staff members, with an annual budget of $45 
million. Because of space constraints, needs have been 
partially met by renting laboratory space at strip malls and 
office parks elsewhere in Ames for the past 29 years. Existing 
facilities are grossly debilitated and inadequate for animal 
health programs of high national priority.
    Consumers rely on USDA to be prepared to deal with known 
and emerging diseases that are a rapidly growing threat because 
of increased travel, trade, concentration, and pathogen 
resistance. This threat is not theoretical, but very real, as 
underscored this year with foot and mouth disease and bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). This threat 
affects producers, consumers, and the economic well-being of us 
all. USDA's research and diagnostic capability is crucial to 
preparedness and rapid response in the face of this threat.
    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 to meet the urgent 
need to begin to consolidate and modernize existing animal 
research and diagnostic facilities. It is the Committee's view 
that this project is crucial to fulfilling USDA's mission to 
ensure a safe food supply and to expand global markets for 
agricultural products and services. This multi-year 
construction effort is a cost-effective approach including 
utility infrastructure replacement, new facility construction, 
renovation of existing facilities, elimination of the need for 
rental space, and demolition of totally obsolete facilities.
    As part of its recommendation, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to report within 60 days of enactment 
of this Act, and quarterly thereafter until completion, on the 
execution status of this project, on the scope and schedule of 
remaining construction increments, and on cost reduction 
initiatives taken to assure that this project will remain 
within program requirements.
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.--The Committee 
recommends $3,762,000, as requested, for repair and maintenance 
of buildings and supporting infrastructure at the Plum Island 
Animal Disease Center at Greenport, NY. The Committee notes 
that no funds are requested for planning or executing an 
upgrade of the Center to Biosafety Level 4, and no funds are 
provided for this purpose. Funds are provided for the following 
projects:

Coastal erosion control measures......................        $1,500,000
Clean-up of construction debris site..................           500,000
Potable water system/miscellaneous small projects/             1,762,000
 contingencies........................................
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................         3,762,000

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

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) was established by the Secretary of 
Agriculture on October 1, 1994, under the authority of the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
6912). The Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative 
State Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission 
of CSREES is to work with university partners to advance 
research, extension, and higher education in the food and 
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human 
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.

                   Research and Education Activities

2001 appropriation....................................      $505,079,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       407,319,000
Provided in the bill..................................       507,452,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +2,373,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................      +100,133,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
were established by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1462, dated July 
19, 1961 and Supplement 1, dated August 31, 1961, and under 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. The primary function of 
research and education activities is to administer Acts of 
Congress that authorize Federal appropriations for agricultural 
research and higher education carried out by the State 
Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States, District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands, and by 
approved schools of forestry, the 1890 land-grant colleges and 
Tuskegee University, the 1994 Native American land-grant 
institutions, and other eligible institutions. Administration 
of payments and grants involves the approval of each research 
proposal to be financed in whole or in part from Federal grant 
funds; the continuous review and evaluation of research and 
higher education programs and expenditures thereunder; and the 
encouragement of cooperation within and between the states and 
with the research programs of the Department of Agriculture.

                          Committee Provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $180,148,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $21,884,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget 
request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$32,604,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2001 and the same as the budget request.

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE  RESEARCH
                        AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                FY 2001      FY 2002       Committee
                              enacted \1\   estimate       provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Activities:
    Payments under the Hatch     $180,148    $180,148           $180,148
     Act....................
    Cooperative Forestry           21,884      21,884             21,884
     Research (McIntire-
     Stennis)...............
    Payments to 1890               32,604      32,604             32,604
     Colleges and Tuskegee
     University.............
Special Research Grants
 (P.L. 89-106):
    Advanced genetic                  474           0                474
     technologies (KY)......
    Advanced spatial                  998           0                998
     technologies (MS)......
    Aegilops cylindricum              359           0                459
     (jointed goatgrass)
     (WA)...................
    Aflatoxin (IL)..........          131           0                  0
    Agricultural                      131           0                131
     diversification (HI)...
    Agricultural diversity/           374           0                500
     Red River Corridor (MN,
     ND)....................
    Agricultural                      424           0                  0
     telecommunications (NY)
    Agriculture-based                 349           0                  0
     industrial lubricants
     (IA)...................
    Agriculture water usage           299           0                  0
     (GA)...................
    Agroecology (MD)........          284           0                500
    Alliance for food                 299           0                299
     protection (GA, NE)....
    Alternative crops (ND)..          624           0                  0
    Alternative crops for             100           0                100
     arid lands (TX)........
    Alternative nutrient              190           0                  0
     management (VT)........
    Alternative salmon                644           0                  0
     products (AK)..........
    Animal science food             1,631           0              1,631
     safety consortium (AR,
     IA, KS)................
    Apple fire blight (MI,            499           0                499
     NY)....................
    Aquaculture (AR)........          237           0                237
    Aquaculture (FL)........          445           0                500
    Aquaculture (LA)........          329           0                329
    Aquaculture (MS)........          591           0                591
    Aquaculture (NC)........          299           0                299
    Aquaculture (VA)........          100           0                100
    Aquaculture (WA)........          284           0                284
    Aquaculture product and           748           0                  0
     marketing development
     (WV)...................
    Asparagus technology and          225           0                225
     production (WA)........
    Babcock Institute (WI)..          599           0                600
    Beef technology transfer          284           0                  0
     (MO)...................
    Biobased technology (MI)          284           0                  0
    Bioinformatics (VA).....          474           0                  0
    Biomass-based energy              900           0                900
     research (OK, MS)......
    Biotechnology (NC)......          284           0                284
    Blocking anhydrous                247           0                247
     methamphetamine
     production (IA)........
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)          324           0                  0
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)          495           0                495
    Center for animal health          113           0                  0
     and productivity (PA)..
    Center for rural studies          200           0                  0
     (VT)...................
    Chesapeake Bay                    175           0                300
     agroecology (MD).......
    Chesapeake Bay                    391           0                  0
     aquaculture............
    Citrus canker (FL)......        4,740           0                500
    Citrus tristeza.........          740           0                740
    Competitiveness of                679           0                679
     agriculture products
     (WA)...................
    Cool season legume                328           0                328
     research (ID, WA)......
    Cotton fiber quality                0           0                500
     (GA)...................
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)          175           0                175
    Cranberry/blueberry               220           0                220
     disease and breeding
     (NJ)...................
    Dairy and meat goat                63           0                 63
     research (TX)..........
    Dairy farm profitability          284           0                284
     (PA)...................
    Delta rural                       205           0                205
     revitalization (MS)....
    Designing foods for               562           0                562
     health (TX)............
    Diaprepes/root weevil             394           0                500
     (FL)...................
    Drought mitigation (NE).          200           0                200
    Ecosystems (AL).........          499           0                  0
    Efficient irrigation            1,185           0              1,200
     (NM, TX)...............
    Environmental                     190           0                190
     biotechnology (RI).....
    Environmental                     284           0                500
     horticulture (FL)......
    Environmental research            399           0                399
     (NY)...................
    Environmental risk                227           0                227
     factors/cancer (NY)....
    Environmentally-safe              245           0                  0
     products (VT)..........
    Exotic pest diseases            1,247           0              2,000
     (CA)...................
    Expanded wheat pasture            292           0                292
     (OK)...................
    Farm injuries and                 284           0                284
     illnesses (NC).........
    Feed barley for                   692           0                692
     rangeland cattle (MT)..
    Fish and shellfish                474           0                474
     technologies (VA)......
    Floriculture (HI).......          249           0                249
    Food and Agriculture              948           0              1,000
     Policy Research
     Institute (IA, MO).....
    Food irradiation (IA)...          225           0                250
    Food Marketing Policy             494           0                494
     Center (CT)............
    Food processing center             42           0                 42
     (NE)...................
    Food quality (AK).......          349           0                  0
    Food safety (AL)........          520           0                  0
    Food safety research              284           0              1,000
     consortium (NY)........
    Food security (WA)......            0           0                500
    Food Systems Research             499           0                500
     Group (WI).............
    Forages for advancing             374           0                  0
     livestock production
     (KY)...................
    Forestry (AR)...........          522           0                522
    Fruit and vegetable               347           0                  0
     market analysis (AZ,
     MO)....................
    Generic commodity                 198           0                198
     promotions, research
     and evaluation (NY)....
    Global change/                  1,431       1,431              1,431
     ultraviolet radiation..
    Grain sorghum (KS)......          106           0                106
    Grass seed cropping for           422           0                422
     sustainable agriculture
     (ID, OR, WA)...........
    Human nutrition (IA)....          472           0                472
    Human nutrition (LA)....          750           0                750
    Human nutrition (NY)....          621           0                621
    Hydroponic tomato                 100           0                100
     production (OH)........
    Illinois-Missouri               1,239           0              1,239
     Alliance for
     Biotechnology..........
    Improved dairy                    397           0                397
     management practices
     (PA)...................
    Improved early detection          198           0                198
     of crop diseases (NC)..
    Improved fruit practices          444           0                  0
     (MI)...................
    Infectious disease                299           0                299
     research (CO)..........
    Institute for Food              1,247           0              1,247
     Science & Engineering
     (AR)...................
    Integrated production             180           0                  0
     systems (OK)...........
    Intelligent quality               142           0                142
     sensor for food safety
     (ND)...................
    International arid lands          494           0                494
     consortium.............
    Iowa Biotechnology              1,561           0              1,561
     Consortium.............
    Livestock and Dairy               569           0                569
     Policy (NY, TX)........
    Livestock genome                    0           0                500
     sequencing (IL)........
    Lowbush blueberry                 259           0                259
     research (ME)..........
    Maple research (VT).....          119           0                  0
    Meadowfoam (OR).........          299           0                299
    Michigan biotechnology            723           0                491
     consortium.............
    Midwest Advanced Food             461           0                461
     Manufacturing Alliance.
    Midwest agricultural              645           0                645
     products (IA)..........
    Midwest poultry                     0           0                500
     consortium (IA)........
    Milk safety (PA)........          374           0                750
    Minor use animal drugs..          549         549                549
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)          399           0                399
    Multi-commodity research          363           0                363
     (OR)...................
    Multi-cropping                    127           0                127
     strategies for
     aquaculture (HI).......
    National beef cattle              284           0                350
     genetic evaluation
     consortium (NY)........
    National biological               253         253                  0
     impact assessment......
    Nematode resistance               127           0                127
     genetic engineering
     (NM)...................
    Nevada arid rangelands            299           0                299
     initiative (NV)........
    New crop opportunities            495           0                  0
     (AK)...................
    New crop opportunities            723           0                  0
     (KY)...................
    Non-food uses of                   64           0                 64
     agricultural products
     (NE)...................
    Nursery, greenhouse,              284           0                400
     turf specialties (AL)..
    Oil resources from                175           0                175
     desert plants (NM).....
    Organic waste                     100           0                100
     utilization (NM).......
    Oyster post harvest                 0           0                500
     treatment (FL).........
    Pasture and forage                249           0                249
     research (UT)..........
    Peach tree short life             179           0                179
     (SC)...................
    Peanut allergy reduction          499           0                  0
     (AL)...................
    Pest control                      117           0                117
     alternatives (SC)......
    Phytophthora root rot             138           0                138
     (NM)...................
    Pierce's disease (CA)...        1,896           0              2,000
    Plant, drought, and               249           0                249
     disease resistance gene
     cataloging (NM)........
    Potato research.........        1,447           0              1,447
    Precision agriculture             748           0                  0
     (KY)...................
    Preharvest food safety            212           0                212
     (KS)...................
    Preservation and                  226           0                226
     processing research
     (OK)...................
    Produce pricing (AZ)....           76           0                  0
    Protein utilization (IA)          190           0                  0
    Rangeland ecosystems              299           0                299
     (NM)...................
    Red snapper research              723           0              1,200
     (AL)...................
    Regional barley gene              587           0                587
     mapping project........
    Regionalized                      293           0                293
     implications of farm
     programs (MO, TX)......
    Rice modeling (AR)......          295           0                  0
    Rural Development                 522         522                700
     Centers (PA, IA, ND,
     MS, OR, LA)............
    Rural Policies Research           820           0              1,300
     Institute (NE, IA, MO).
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)          249           0                249
    Safe vegetable                    284           0                  0
     production (GA)........
    Satsuma orange research           474           0              1,000
     (AL)...................
    Sclerotina disease                237           0                  0
     research (MN)..........
    Seafood and aquaculture           304           0                304
     harvesting, processing
     and marketing (MS).....
    Seafood harvesting,             1,165           0                  0
     processing, and
     marketing (AK).........
    Seafood safety (MA).....          277           0                500
    Small fruit research              324           0                400
     (OR, WA, ID)...........
    Southwest consortium for          368           0                400
     plant genetics and
     water resources........
    Soybean cyst nematode             599           0                700
     (MO)...................
    STEEP--water quality in           499           0                600
     the Pacific Northwest..
    Sustainable agriculture           392           0                500
     (CA)...................
    Sustainable agriculture           444           0                  0
     (MI)...................
    Sustainable agriculture           100           0                125
     and natural resources
     (PA)...................
    Sustainable agriculture            59           0                 59
     systems (NE)...........
    Sustainable beef supply           742           0                742
     (MT)...................
    Sustainable engineered              0           0                500
     materials from
     renewable resources
     (VA)...................
    Sustainable pest                  461           0                461
     management for dryland
     wheat (MT).............
    Swine and other animal            499           0                499
     waste management (NC)..
    Technological                     284           0                300
     development of
     renewable resources
     (MO)...................
    Tillage, silviculture,            212           0                212
     waste management (LA)..
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)..          249           0                249
    Tropical aquaculture              198           0                198
     (FL)...................
    Tropical and subtropical        3,854           0             10,000
     research/T STAR........
    Turkey carna virus (IN).          200           0                  0
    Value-added product               331           0                331
     development from
     agricultural resources
     (MT)...................
    Value-added products               95           0                150
     (IL)...................
    Vidalia onions (GA).....          249           0                  0
    Viticulture consortium          1,497           0              2,000
     (NY, CA, PA)...........
    Water conservation (KS).           79           0                 79
    Water use efficiency and            0           0                600
     water quality
     enhancements (GA)......
    Weed control (ND).......          435           0                435
    Wetland plants (LA).....          599           0                599
    Wheat genetic research            260           0                260
     (KS)...................
    Wheat sawfly research             331           0                331
     (MT)...................
    Wood utilization (AK,           5,773           0              5,773
     ID, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC,
     OR, TN)................
    Wool research (TX, MT,            299           0                300
     WY)....................
    Adjustment for rounding.            3           0                  0
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Special            85,481       2,755             82,409
       Research Grants......
                             ===========================================
Improved pest control:
    Emerging pests/critical           200         200                200
     issues.................
    Expert IPM decision               177         177                177
     support system.........
    Integrated pest                 2,725       2,725              2,725
     management.............
    IR-4 minor crop pest            8,970       8,970             11,000
     management.............
    Pest management                 1,619       1,619              1,619
     alternatives...........
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Improved           13,691      13,691             15,721
       pest control.........
                             ===========================================
National Research Initiative      105,767     105,767            105,767
 (NRI) competitive grants...
Animal health and disease           5,098       5,098              5,098
 (sec. 1433)................
Alternative crops:
    Canola..................          599           0                600
    Hesperaloe and other              199           0                350
     natural products from
     desert plants..........
Critical Agricultural                 639           0                639
 Materials Act..............
1994 Institutions research            998         998                998
 program....................
Institution challenge grants        4,340       4,340              4,340
Graduate fellowships grants.        2,993       2,993              2,993
Multicultural scholars                998         998                998
 program....................
Hispanic education                  3,492       3,492              3,492
 partnership grants.........
Capacity building grants            9,479       9,479              9,479
 (1890 institutions)........
Payments to the 1994                1,549       1,549              1,549
 Institutions...............
Alaska Native-serving and           2,993       2,993              2,993
 Native Hawaiian-serving
 Institutions education
 grants.....................
Secondary agriculture                 798         798              1,000
 education..................
Sustainable agriculture             9,230       9,230             12,000
 research and education/SARE
Aquaculture centers (sec.           3,991       3,991              3,991
 1475)......................
Federal Administration:
    Agriculture-based                   0           0                450
     industrial lubricants
     (IA)...................
    Agriculture development           563           0                563
     in the American Pacific
    Agriculture waste                 495           0                  0
     utilization (WV).......
    Agriculture water policy          365           0                750
     (GA)...................
    Alternative fuels                 258           0                300
     characterization
     laboratory (ND)........
    Animal waste management           274           0                  0
     (OK)...................
    Aquaculture (OH)........            0           0                500
    Biotechnology (MS)......          590           0                  0
    Center for Agricultural           427           0                750
     and Rural Development
     (IA)...................
    Center for Innovative             759           0                781
     Food Technology (OH)...
    Center for North                   87           0                250
     American Studies (TX)..
    Climate change research           170           0                  0
     (FL)...................
    Cotton research (TX)....          499           0              1,000
    Data Information System.        2,120       2,120              2,120
    Fruit and vegetable                 0           0                347
     market analysis (AZ,
     MO)....................
    Geographic information          1,023           0              1,025
     system.................
    Germplasm development in          100           0                100
     forage grasses (OH)....
    Livestock marketing               185           0                  0
     information center (CO)
    Mariculture (NC)........          324           0                324
    Mississippi Valley State          646           0                  0
     University.............
    National Center for               399           0                  0
     Peanut Competitiveness
     (GA)...................
    Office of Extramural              448         448                448
     Programs...............
    Pay costs and FERS......        1,098       1,594              1,732
    Peer Panels.............          349         349                349
    PM-10 air quality study           435           0                435
     (WA)...................
    Precision agriculture/            586           0                  0
     geospatial training and
     application center (AL)
    Precision agriculture/            147           0                600
     Tennessee valley
     research and extension
     center (AL)............
    Produce pricing (AZ)....            0           0                 76
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,         4,168           0              4,168
     HI, LA, MA, MS, SC, TX)
    Sustainable agriculture           474           0                500
     development (OH).......
    Urban silviculture (NY).          237           0                237
    Water quality (IL)......          348           0                  0
    Water quality (ND)......          394           0                394
    Wetland plants (WV).....          142           0                200
    Adjustment for rounding.           -2           0                  0
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal            18,108       4,511             18,399
       Administration.......
                             ===========================================
      Total, Research and         505,079     407,319            507,452
       Education Activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.


              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

2001 appropriation....................................        $7,100,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         7,100,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,100,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................  ................
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides authority to establish an 
endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (31 tribal 
controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational 
opportunities for Native Americans by building educational 
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student 
recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty 
preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific 
instrumentation for teaching. Beginning in 2001, funds also are 
available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and 
maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the 
Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for 
the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for the cost of 
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted 
income as follows: sixty percent of the adjusted income from 
these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 
institutions on a pro-rata basis, the proportionate share being 
based on the Indian student count; and forty percent of the 
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the 
1994 land-grant institutions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee provides $7,100,000, the same as the amount available 
in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

                          Extension Activities

2001 appropriation....................................      $432,475,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       413,404,000
Provided in the bill..................................       436,029,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +3,554,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................       +22,625,000

    Cooperative agricultural extension work was established by 
the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The legislation 
authorizes the Department of Agriculture to give, through the 
land-grant institutions, instruction and practical 
demonstrations in agricultural and home economics and related 
subjects, and to encourage the application of such information 
by means of demonstrations, publications, and otherwise to 
persons not attending or a resident in the colleges. In 
addition, the Service provides nutrition training to low-income 
families, 4-H Club work, and educational assistance such as 
community resource development.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $436,029,000, an increase of $3,554,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$22,625,000 above the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        FY 2001     FY 2002    Committee
                                      enacted \1\   estimate  provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)..    $275,940    $275,940    $275,940
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety.....................       3,991           0       5,800
    Food and nutrition education....      58,566      58,566      58,566
    Indian reservation agents.......       1,996       1,996       1,996
    Pest management.................      10,759      10,759      10,759
    Rural development centers.......         906         906         906
    Sustainable agriculture.........       3,792       3,792       5,000
    Youth at risk...................       8,481       8,481       8,481
    Youth farm safety education and          499         499         499
     certification..................
Renewable Resources Extension Act...       3,185       3,185       3,185
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee                28,181      28,181      28,181
 University.........................
1890 facilities grants..............      12,173      12,173      12,173
Rural health and safety education...       2,622           0       2,622
Extension services at the 1994             3,273       3,273       3,273
 institutions.......................
Adjustment for rounding.............          -1           0           0
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal......................     414,363     407,751     417,381
                                     ===================================
Federal Administration:
    After-school program (CA).......         398           0           0
    Ag in the classroom.............         451         451         750
    Agricultural telecommunications            0           0         424
     (NY)...........................
    Beef producers improvement (AR).         197           0         197
    Botanical garden initiative (IL)         237           0           0
    Conservation technology transfer         474           0         500
     (WI)...........................
    Dairy education (IA)............         237           0           0
    Delta Teachers Academy..........       3,492           0       3,492
    Diabetes detection, prevention           924           0         924
     (WA)...........................
    Efficient irrigation (NM/TX)....       1,896           0       2,000
    Extension specialist (MS).......         100           0         100
    Family farm beef industry              1,317           0       1,400
     network (OH)...................
    Food animal residue avoidance            284           0       1,000
     database/FARAD.................
    Food Electronically and                  167           0           0
     Effectively Distributed (FEED)
     demonstration project (OR).....
    Income enhancement demonstration         245           0         246
     (OH)...........................
    Integrated cow/calf management           284           0         300
     (IA)...........................
    National Center for Agriculture          195           0         200
     Safety (IA)....................
    Pilot technology transfer (WI)..         163           0         163
    Pilot technology transfer (OK,           325           0         325
     MS)............................
    Potato pest management (WI).....         190           0         200
    Range improvement (NM)..........         197           0         197
    Rural development (AK)..........         617           0           0
    Rural development (NM)..........         279           0         454
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).......         245           0         245
    Vocational agriculture (OK).....         275           0           0
    Wood biomass as an alternative           197           0         197
     farm product (NY)..............
    General administration and pay..       4,726       5,202       5,334
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration.      18,112       5,653      18,648
                                     ===================================
      Total, Extension Activities...     432,475     413,404     436,029
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.

    Farm Safety: AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for 
Smith-Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends 
$4,600,000 for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with 
disabilities to be able to farm safely, efficiently, and 
profitably through on-the-farm education and assistance.
    Income enhancement demonstration (OH).--The Committee 
expects that the Agricultural Business Enhancement Center will 
intensify its efforts in identifying and pursuing improved 
business practices and alternative market opportunities, 
including those related to sales at or through Farmers' 
Markets.
    Prairie State Wilderness Walk.--The Committee encourages 
the Department to support the enhancement of the Prairie State 
Wilderness Walk in Chicago.

                         integrated activities

2001 appropriation....................................       $41,849,000
2002 budget estimates.................................        41,849,000
Provided in the bill..................................        43,355,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +1,506,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +1,506,000

    Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program. Programs 
included support multifunctional projects that integrate 
research, education and extension components.

                                              INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2001         FY 2002        Committee
                                                                    enacted \1\      estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants
 Program:
    Water Quality...............................................         $12,971         $12,971         $12,971
    Food Safety.................................................          14,967          14,967          14,967
    Pesticide Impact Assessment.................................           4,531           4,531           4,531
    Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation......................           1,497           1,497           1,497
    FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems....           4,889           4,889           4,889
    Methyl Bromide Transition Program...........................           2,495           2,495           2,500
    Organic Transition Program..................................             499             499           2,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Integrated Activities..............................          41,849          41,849          43,355
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.22 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-554.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $43,355,000, an increase of $1,506,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$1,506,000 above the budget request.
    Water Quality: Farm*A*Syst.--Within funds provided for 
Water Quality under the Integrated Activities account, the 
Department is encouraged to give consideration to $2,000,000 
for the Farm*A*Syst program, to expand this voluntary pollution 
prevention program which has been utilized in Skaneateles Lake 
and Cortland County, NY, to help farmers and residential owners 
identify pollution risks on their property.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs


2001 appropriation....................................          $634,000
2002 budget estimate..................................           654,000
Provided in the bill..................................           660,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................           +26,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................            +6,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the 
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities 
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock, 
marketing orders and various programs; veterinary services; and 
plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$660,000, an increase of $26,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget 
request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                  Total, APHIS
                                                             Appropriations     User Fees \1\    Appropriations

2001 appropriation \1\....................................      $444,584,000       $84,813,000      $529,397,000
2002 budget estimate......................................       618,112,000        84,813,000       702,925,000
Provided in the bill......................................       502,573,000        84,813,000       587,386,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation....................................       +57,989,000  ................       +57,989,000
    2002 budget estimate..................................      -115,539,000  ................      -115,539,000

\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
  appropriations.

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was 
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972 
under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 and 
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect 
the animal and plant resources of the nation from diseases and 
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas 
of activity, as follows:
    Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection 
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports-of-entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control 
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic 
activities.
    Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to cooperators such as 
states, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
agency.
     Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities 
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals as 
required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These 
activities include inspection of certain establishments that 
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, 
and monitoring of certain horse shows.
    Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed 
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals; 
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and 
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered 
products.
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.--User fees are 
collected to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine 
activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction 
of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2001      FY 2002     Committee
                                     enacted      request     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine            $38,884      $47,254       47,254
     inspection..................
    User fees \1\................       84,813       84,813       84,813
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AQI..............      123,697      132,067      132,067
                                  ======================================
    Cattle ticks.................        5,264        5,732        6,232
    Foot-and-mouth disease.......        3,795        3,839        3,839
    Import/export................        7,010        8,132        8,132
    Trade issues resolution              8,187       11,367       11,367
     management..................
    Fruit fly exclusion and             32,538       56,018       34,818
     detection...................
    Screwworm....................       30,308       30,557       30,557
    Tropical bont tick...........          406          415          415
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease          211,205      248,127      227,427
       Exclusion.................
                                  ======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
 Monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and        68,502       71,531       73,306
     surveillance................
    Animal and plant health              6,249        6,601        7,601
     regulatory enforcement......
    Emergency management system..        2,990        3,044        5,044
    Pest detection...............        6,714        6,844        6,844
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Plant and Animal           84,455       88,020       92,795
       Health Monitoring.........
                                  ======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
 Programs:
    Aquaculture..................          918          940          940
    Biocontrol...................        8,300        8,759        8,759
    Boll weevil..................       78,983       33,931       33,931
    Brucellosis eradication......        9,921        8,450        8,450
    Emerging plant pests.........        3,525       99,492       48,515
    Golden nematode..............          579          610        1,010
    Gypsy moth...................        4,407        4,559        4,559
    Imported fire ant............        2,095        2,118        2,118
    Noxious weeds................        1,122        1,130        1,130
    Pink bollworm................        1,545        1,616        1,616
    Pseudorabies.................        4,030       34,570        4,151
    Scrapie eradication..........        3,017       21,019        3,119
    Tuberculosis.................        5,462       18,552        5,649
    Wildlife services operations.       36,700       54,456       56,956
    Witchweed....................        1,503        1,520        1,520
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease          162,107      291,722      182,423
       Management................
                                  ======================================
4. Animal Care:
    Animal welfare...............       12,140       12,767       15,167
    Horse protection.............          397          415          415
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Animal Care.........       12,537       13,182       15,582
                                  ======================================
5. Scientific and Technical
 Services:
    Biotechnology/environmental          9,999       10,516       10,516
     protection..................
    Integrated systems                     998          998        2,500
     acquisition project.........
    Plant methods development            4,796        5,118        5,118
     laboratories................
    Veterinary biologics.........       10,727       11,413       11,413
    Veterinary diagnostics.......       17,476       18,278       18,278
    WS methods development.......       11,001       11,455       12,955
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Scientific and             54,997       57,778       60,780
       Technical Services........
                                  ======================================
6. Contingency fund..............        4,096        4,096        4,096
7. Pay parity....................  ...........  ...........        4,283
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and              529,397      702,925      587,386
       Expenses..................
                                  ======================================
Recap (Salaries and Expenses):
    Appropriated.................      444,584      618,112      502,573
    AQI user fees................       84,813       84,813       84,813
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and              529,397      702,925      587,386
       Expenses..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal
  Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
  appropriation.

    Agricultural quarantine inspection.--The Committee 
encourages APHIS to explore the use of computer tomography 
technology to more effectively execute its contraband 
interception mission.
    Cattle ticks.--The Committee has provided $6,232,000 for 
the cattle tick eradication program. The Committee notes that 
there are at least two vacant inspector positions (Mission and 
Brownsville, TX), that have gone unfilled for lack of funds, 
the program's vehicle fleet of 60 vehicles all have over 80,000 
miles each, and existing radio equipment needs replacing. The 
Committee has included an additional $500,000 over the 
President's request for this program. The Committee expects the 
Agency to fill at least two inspector vacancies, replace at 
least 5 vehicles, and ensure that the radio equipment is up-to-
date.
    Fruit fly.--The Committee has provided $34,818,000 for the 
fruit fly program. The Committee has included an additional 
$2,000,000 to address the inequity in the distribution of funds 
for fruit fly trapping in Florida and California. The Committee 
directs the Agency to increase the California fruit fly 
trapping program by $2,000,000 to close the gap in the 
distribution of funds.
    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHM&S;).--The 
Committee provides an additional $750,000 for the National 
Poultry Improvement Plan. The Committee expects APHIS to use 
the additional funds to increase the number of Salmonella 
isolates to be serotyped, and to increase the number of 
antigen/antiserum test kits for avian influenza.
    Within the amount provided for AHM&S;, $4,000,000 is 
available for pseudorabies monitoring and surveillance.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2001 level for the National Farm Identification Records Project 
for Dairy Cattle to be coordinated with the Holstein 
Association.
    The Committee has included an increase of $1,000,000 for a 
cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Animal Health 
Consortium for a pilot project to aid in creating a universal 
identification and database retrieval system for tracking the 
movement of animal and animal-based food products. The 
Committee urges APHIS and the Wisconsin Animal Health 
Consortium to work in concert with the National Farm Animal 
Identification Project to ensure that duplication of program 
does not occur.
    Animal and Plant health regulatory enforcement.--The 
Committee has provided $7,601,000 for animal and plant health 
regulatory enforcement. The Committee has included an increase 
of $1,000,000 for investigative enforcement, and expects the 
Agency to hire additional investigators to begin addressing the 
backlog of animal care investigations.
    Emergency Management System.--The Committee has provided 
$5,044,000 for the Emergency Management System, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee expects 
APHIS to place emergency managers in the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency regions across the country. The Committee 
encourages APHIS to use the funds to make grants to States to 
establish animal health emergency standards and programs.
    The Committee directs APHIS to determine if existing 
quantitative tools are available to assess the effectiveness of 
local government planned responses to potential outbreaks of 
bovine diseases, and to report to the Committee on 
Appropriations what existing quantitive tools are available by 
December 1, 2001.
    Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee 
(GYIBC).--The Committee provides $600,000 for the GYIBC and 
encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and private 
actions aimed at eliminating brucellosis from wildlife in the 
Greater Yellowstone area.
    Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee has provided 
$48,515,000 for the emerging plant pests program including: 
$3,618,000 for the base program; $10,000,000 for glassy-winged 
sharpshooter; and $34,897,000 to augment CCC transfers to 
combat emergency outbreaks of citrus canker, Asian longhorned 
beetle, and plum pox virus.
    The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to 
continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer 
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the arrest and 
eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that 
threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this 
account, the Committee is enhancing the work that has begun to 
combat emergency outbreaks.
    The Committee notes that funds appropriated in this bill 
are subject to obligation within the fiscal year for which they 
are appropriated while funds transferred from the CCC are 
available until expended. For example, according to USDA's 
fiscal year 2002 budget justifications, there is about 
$65,000,000 in CCC funds that was transferred in fiscal year 
2000 that was still available for obligation as of April 9, 
2001. If those funds had been appropriated, they would not have 
been available in fiscal year 2001. The use of the Secretary's 
emergency authority places the Department in a better position 
to respond to emergencies, more so than the annual budget and 
appropriations cycle that takes about 18 months to complete.
    The Committee is aware of the emerging problem that the 
olive fly is having on the olive industry and directs APHIS to 
provide adequate resources to combat this pest.
    Golden nemotode.-- The Committee has included an increase 
of $400,000 for golden nematode control efforts in New York. 
The Committee directs APHIS to coordinate the use of added 
funds with the New York State Department of Agriculture and 
Markets and Cornell University.
    Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs the continuation 
of the following programs that were included in fiscal year 
2001: $250,000 for wildlife services to contain crop and 
aquaculture losses in southeastern Missouri; $625,000 for a 
cooperative agreement with Georgia Wildlife Services and the 
University of Georgia to conduct research on and control of 
game bird predation in Georgia; $100,000 for trapping in 
Virginia to combat increased predation by coyotes; $100,000 for 
wildlife biologist to serve North Florida, southeast Louisiana, 
and southwest Georgia; $150,000 for blackbird control efforts 
for reduction in blackbird damage to rice; $240,000 for rodent 
control in Hawaii; and $1,000,000 for predator control programs 
for livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    The Committee has included additional funding for the 
following items in its fiscal year 2002 appropriation for 
Wildlife Services: an additional $1,000,000 for aerial 
operations safety; an additional $1,000,000 for Wildlife 
Services in the State of Texas to bring the Federal cost-share 
into line with the national average; and an additional $500,000 
for predator control in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
    The Committee has provided $16,500,000 for rabies control 
efforts.
    Animal welfare.--The Committee has provided $15,167,000 for 
animal welfare, an increase of $2,400,000 above the President's 
request. The Committee directs APHIS to hire an additional 14 
inspectors and support staff so that the overall number of 
inspections can increase, and those facilities that are in non-
compliance may be reinspected more frequently.
    Integrated Systems Acquisition Project.--The Committee has 
provided $2,500,000, an increase of $1,502,000 above the 
President's request, for maintenance and replacement cost of 
network servers.
    Wildlife Service Methods Development.--The Committee has 
provided $12,955,000, an increase of $1,500,000 above the 
President's request, for Wildlife Services Methods Development 
to addresss infrastructure deficiencies at the National 
Wildlife Research Center. The Committee expects a report from 
APHIS on the extent of the deficiencies at the NWRC and the 
associated costs to correct them.
    The Committee directs APHIS to continue a $500,000 project 
to develop a reproductive inhibitor for Canadian geese at the 
National Wildlife Research Center.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports a program for 
the control, management, and eradication of the imported fire 
ant and provides $2,118,000 for this program, of which $45,000 
is for New Mexico.
    Berryman Institute.--The Committee directs the Department 
to continue the current funding level for the Jack Berryman 
Institute in Utah.
    Avocados.--The Committee urges APHIS to continue working 
closely with U.S. avocado growers in implementing procedures 
for the importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs 
APHIS to report on the status of Mexican avocado imports, 
including any problems in pest surveys, and oversight by APHIS 
personnel, including the diversion of Mexican avocados to other 
than approved destinations. The Committee also directs APHIS to 
report to Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the 
approved areas or lengthening time periods for importation of 
Mexican avocados. In addition, the Committee is concerned that 
USDA's rule-making, which did not include an advanced notice of 
public rule-making, has not been adequately open for comment by 
domestic and international growers, and that USDA should allow 
additional comment on the science supporting such expansion of 
states or extension of shipping season for avocados imported 
from Mexico.
    Export Certification User Fees.--The Committee is aware of 
user fees associated with the certification of exports of 
livestock and livestock semen and embryos. The Committee is 
concerned about user fees that are established at such a level 
that they maintain full cost recovery and do not prohibit the 
export of livestock, livestock semen and embryos and make these 
products non-competitive in the international marketplace. This 
Committee instructs USDA to review the current user fee 
structure and to report back to this Committee on this 
structure and how this structure was established. This review 
should include a summary of the fees that are charged to 
exporters for the various services and delineate how USDA 
arrived at such fee. It is the intent of the Committee that 
user fees should recover the full cost of these services 
provided by USDA. USDA should consider the impact of the user 
fee upon exporting entities and ensure that user fees recover 
the cost incurred, but do not limit the international marketing 
opportunities for livestock, livestock semen and embryos.
    Control of brucellosis in wildlife in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area.--The Committee urges APHIS and ARS to work 
cooperatively and expeditiously with the National Park Service, 
the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service to begin 
implementation of a vaccination program for bison in FY 2002 
and to report back to Congress annually on the dollar amounts 
expended, the nature of the work funded, and the progress and 
results of these efforts.
    Import Inspection Activities.--The Committee is concerned 
that resources of the Department of Agriculture are being used 
to finance the expenses of activities not of primary benefit to 
American agriculture. For example, APHIS expends valuable 
resources inspecting wood packing materials that are used for 
imported manufactured goods so as to guard against invasive 
species. While these inspection activities are vital, their 
cost should be borne by the importer of the goods. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide a report prior to 
the fiscal year 2003 hearings detailing the nature and volume 
of inspected imported materials, to what extent those items are 
imported primarily for agricultural or non-agricultural use, 
what the costs are for inspecting and treating items related to 
non-agricultural use, and what level of fees could properly be 
assessed in order to have the importer pay the cost of any 
inspection or treatment.
    Bird hazards/public safety.--The Committee is aware that 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and USDA have 
previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to 
develop a cooperative approach to resolving bird hazards to 
civilian aviation in the furtherance of public safety. In 
addition, FAA statistics show that Florida now experiences more 
bird strikes to aircraft than any other state. The Committee is 
concerned about this situation and strongly encourages the 
agency to examine the feasibility of providing two additional 
wildlife biologists and associated resources in Florida, as 
well as initiating new methods and development activities in 
Florida to strengthen the response to this increasing wildlife 
hazard.

                        Buildings and Facilities

2001 appropriation....................................        $9,848,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         5,189,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,189,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        -2,659,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +2,000,000

    The APHIS Buildings and Facilities account funds major 
nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific 
program activities and recurring construction, alterations, 
preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS 
facilities.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings 
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$7,189,000, a decrease of $2,659,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $2,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The following table summarizes the committee's provisions:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY 2001    FY 2002    Committee
                                         enacted    request   provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings and Facilities:
    Plum Island, NY...................     $3,193     $3,193      $3,193
    Quarantine and seed facilities, AK     $4,659          0           0
    Miami Animal Import Center, FL....  .........  .........       2,000
    Basic buildings and facilities          1,996      1,996       1,996
     repair, alterations, and
     preventative maintenance.........
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total, Buildings & Facilities...      9,848      5,189       7,189
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Miami International Airport Facility.--The Committee has 
included an additional $2,000,000 for buildings and facilities 
to cover costs associated with the new ``one-stop'' facility to 
be built at Miami International Airport that will house the 
Plant Protection and Quarantine Air Cargo Operations, the Plant 
Inspection Station, the Canine Operations Kennel Units, and a 
100 stall animal import/export center.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           Marketing Services

2001 appropriation....................................       $65,191,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        71,430,000
Provided in the bill..................................        71,774,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +6,583,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +344,000

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the 
authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities. Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory 
programs, AMS aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing 
and effective distribution and transportation of products from 
the Nation's farms.
    Programs administered by this agency include market news 
activities, payments to states for marketing activities, the 
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of 
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, 
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation 
services, and market protection and promotion.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$71,774,000, an increase of $6,583,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $344,000 
above the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $14,259,000 for the Pesticide 
Data Program, and $5,900,000 for the Mandatory Price Reporting 
Program, the same as the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of the strong concerns that have 
been raised about the Agricultural Marketing Service's 
Microbiological Data Program. In particular, questions have 
been raised regarding barriers that could disrupt or impede its 
useful and effective implementation. The Committee further 
understands that concerns have been raised about the effort by 
the Department to utilize a stakeholder process, which can 
review the program in terms of its goals, objectives, and 
implementation plan. The Committee therefore recommends that 
the Department hold a public meeting as soon as possible. The 
meeting should include consumer and industry groups to ensure 
that public concerns surrounding the program can be considered 
by USDA.
    The Committee is concerned about the problems that USDA has 
experienced with the implementation of Mandatory Price 
Reporting and the disruptions that these problems have caused 
participants in the marketplace. The law requires the Secretary 
of Agriculture to establish programs to provide price 
information for cattle and hogs that is timely, accurate, and 
reliable, so as to facilitate more informed marketing decisions 
and promote competition in the slaughtering industry. The price 
reporting system that the Secretary initiated to meet these 
requirements has been less timely and, although now corrected, 
reported grossly inaccurate information on the boxed beef 
cutout value. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with 
interested parties to develop recommendations for obtaining 
more timely, consistent, meaningful and accurate data without 
compromising confidentiality and to provide such 
recommendations to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

2001 limitation.......................................     ($60,596,000)
2002 budget limitation................................      (60,596,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (60,596,000)
Comparison:
    2001 limitation...................................  ................
    2002 budget limitation............................  ................

    The Agricultural Marketing Service provides inspection, 
grading, and classing services to the cotton and tobacco 
industries on a user funded basis. The legislative authorities 
to carry out these programs are: the U.S. Cotton Standards Act; 
the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927, as amended; 
the Tobacco Inspection Act; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981; the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1985; and 
the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. These programs 
facilitate the interstate and foreign commerce of these 
products. This is accomplished by inspecting, identifying, and 
certifying the quality of these products in accordance with 
official standards. Grades serve as a basis for prices and 
reflect the value of the products to the producer as well as 
the buyer. These programs facilitate the movement of 
commodities through marketing channels in a quick, efficient, 
and equitable manner.

                          Committee Provisions

    For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides 
$60,596,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2001 and the same as the budget request.

          Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                              (Section 32)

                     Marketing Agreement and Orders

2001 appropriation......................................   ($13,438,000)
2002 budget estimate....................................    (13,874,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (13,995,000)
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      (+557,000)
    2002 budget estimate................................      (+121,000)

    The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all 
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural 
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of 
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or 
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the 
farmers' purchasing power.
    The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets 
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to 
encourage continued adequate production.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2000 through 2002:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2000-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 2001 current     FY 2002 budget
                                                           FY 2000 actual        estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts).........     $5,735,557,955     $5,738,448,921     $6,139,942,369
Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224)........  .................        200,000,000  .................
    Less Rescission....................................            -15,000  .................  .................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service.........................     -4,935,199,000     -5,127,579,000     -5,340,708,000
    Commerce Department................................        -69,920,523        -72,827,819        -79,125,978
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers.................................     -5,005,119,523     -5,200,406,819     -5,419,833,978
                                                        ========================================================
Budget Authority.......................................        730,423,432        738,042,102        720,108,391
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year...........        112,630,114        241,269,707        218,630,609
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................         50,355,227  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Available for Obligation.........................        893,408,773        979,311,809        938,739,000
                                                        ========================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Purchases......................        399,999,997        400,000,000        400,000,000
        Removal of Defective Commodities...............            500,000          1,000,000  .................
        Lamb Grading and Certification Support.........  .................          1,000,000  .................
        Emergency Surplus Removal......................        200,214,947         68,589,200  .................
        Diversion Payments.............................         30,777,658         10,250,000  .................
        Disaster Relief................................  .................  .................  .................
        Specialty Crop Purchases.......................  .................        200,000,000  .................
        Estimated Future Purchases.....................  .................         56,800,000        215,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity Procurement.................        631,492,602        737,639,200        615,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
Administrative Funds:
    Commodity Purchase Service.........................          8,405,567          9,604,000          9,865,000
    Marketing Agreements & Orders......................         12,240,897         13,438,000         13,874,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Funds......................         20,646,464         23,042,000         23,739,000
                                                        ========================================================
      Total, Obligations...............................        652,139,066        760,681,200        638,739,000
                                                        ========================================================
Carryout...............................................        241,269,707        218,630,609        300,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year.............        241,269,707        218,630,609        300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$13,995,000, an increase of $557,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $121,000 above the 
budget request.
    Purchase of Irradiated Foods.--Should the USDA purchase 
foods that have been treated with ionizing radiation for any of 
its nutritional programs, the packaging shall be clearly 
labeled and state that foods have been irradiated in compliance 
with current FDA regulations on labeling for irradiated foods.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

2001 appropriation....................................        $1,347,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         1,347,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,347,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................  ................
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is 
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are 
made to state marketing agencies to: identify and test market 
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing 
more reliable market information; and develop better commodity 
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of 
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product 
diversification. Current projects are focused on the 
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and 
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The 
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority 
to establish cooperative agreements with State Departments of 
Agriculture or similar state agencies to improve the efficiency 
of the agricultural marketing chain. The states perform the 
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least 
one-half of the cost of the projects.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,347,000, the same amount 
available for fiscal year 2001, and the same as the budget 
request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

2001 appropriation \1\................................       $31,350,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        32,907,000
Provided in the bill..................................        33,117,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +1,767,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................          +210,000

\1\ Excludes $200 thousand less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  provided by P.L. 106-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act).

    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
(GIPSA) was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994 
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are 
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other 
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and 
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain 
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and 
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, 
and poultry markets is provided. The Administration monitors 
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and 
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect 
meat and poultry prices.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides $33,117,000, an increase 
of $1,767,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001, 
and an increase of $210,000 above the budget request.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

2001 limitation.......................................     ($42,463,000)
2002 budget limitation................................      (42,463,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (42,463,000)
Comparison:
    2001 limitation...................................  ................
    2002 budget limitation............................  ................

    The U.S. Grain Standards Act requires, with minor 
exceptions, that all grain exported by grade must be officially 
inspected and weighed. The agency's employees or delegated 
state agencies perform original inspection and weighing 
services at export port locations in the United States and 
Canada. Grain which is not being exported may be inspected at 
interior locations, upon request, by licensed employees of 
designated state and private agencies. The agency's employees, 
upon request, perform domestic original inspection and weighing 
services on grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related grain 
commodities. The agency's employees supervise and provide 
oversight for inspectors performing official services.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the 
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with 
notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for 
flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 
and oversight or other uncontrollable factors occur.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

2001 appropriation......................................        $459,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         476,000
Provided in the bill....................................         481,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................         +22,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +5,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides 
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by 
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of 
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $481,000, an increase of 
$22,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $5,000 above the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service


2001 appropriation....................................      $695,171,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       715,542,000
Provided in the bill..................................       720,652,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +25,481,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +5,110,000

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on 
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued 
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
    The major objectives of the Service are to assure that meat 
and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly 
labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide 
continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under 
the Egg Products Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen 
reduction program.
    The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic 
plants preparing meat, poultry, or egg products for sale or 
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and 
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export 
to the United States; and provides technical and financial 
assistance to states which maintain meat and poultry inspection 
programs.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $720,652,000, an increase of 
$25,481,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $5,110,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee provides the full amount requested for 
inspection costs and for activities related to the Codex 
Alimentarius.
    Pathogen-reduction Through Irradiation.--It is the 
Committee's understanding that Food and Drug Administration 
approval of irradiation processes for meat and poultry also 
serves as Food Safety Inspection Service approval, as of the 
December 23, 1999 Federal Register notice. The Committee 
encourages FSIS to work closely with firms wishing to include 
such processes in their production, and to provide any required 
review in a timely manner.
    Laboratory Testing.--The Committee strongly encourages the 
agency to consider outsourcing microbiological testing to 
private laboratories approved by the American Association for 
Laboratory Accreditation (International Standards Organization) 
as a method of increasing budgetary efficiencies, expediting 
test turn-around time, and increasing food safety.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS


    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

2001 appropriation......................................        $588,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         606,000
Provided in the bill....................................         611,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................         +23,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +5,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign 
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 
Agency (which includes the Commodity Credit Corporation), the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $611,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget 
request.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-
354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the 
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers 
the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC); the warehouse examination function; 
the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other 
conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program (NAP); and farm ownership, operating, 
emergency disaster, and other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 
(1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary 
offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the 
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production 
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract, a 
participant's prior contract-crop acreage history and payment 
yield, as well as total program participation, each contract 
participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual 
dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain 
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection, 
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for 
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, 
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production 
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for 
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
    Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, 
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 Act provides for 
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract 
commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, 
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment 
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus 
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. Producers have the 
option of taking a loan deficiency payment, if available, in 
lieu of the marketing assistance loan.
    The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where 
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature 
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of 
sugar. The 1996 Act provides for a milk price support program, 
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31, 
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35 
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per 
hundredweight in 1999. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 
106-78, extends the milk price support program to January 1, 
2001. The 1996 Act and the 1938 Act provide for a peanut loan 
and poundage quota program for the 1996 through 2002 crops of 
peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended 
(1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a price support, 
quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will, in effect, be one percentage point higher 
than CCC's cost-of-money for that month.
    The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by 
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for 
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment 
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000 
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan 
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was 
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues 
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the 3-entity rule is 
continued.
    Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various 
price support and related programs have been authorized in 
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's. 
Operations under these programs are financed through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the 
Farm Service Agency (FSA) are utilized in the administration of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the 
FSA is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
    The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address 
high priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC 
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of 
the programs financed through the CCC.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations 
and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480.
    Farm credit programs.--The Department's reorganization has 
placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate 
improved coordination between the credit programs and FSA's 
risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs. 
FSA reviews applications, makes and collects loans, and 
provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under 
credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) loans are 
appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and transferred to FSA 
salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection 
for growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not 
available.

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                              Transfer from
                                                            Appropriation    program accts.     Total, FSA, S&E;

2001 appropriation \1\..................................      $826,563,000    ($266,132,000)    ($1,092,695,000)
2002 budget estimate....................................       939,030,000     (274,357,000)     (1,213,387,000)
Provided in the bill....................................       945,993,000     (276,546,000)     (1,222,539,000)
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      +119,430,000     (+10,414,000)      (+129,844,000)
    2002 budget estimate................................        +6,963,000      (+2,189,000)        (+9,152,000)

\1\ Excludes $50 million in supplemental funds provided by P.L. 106-387


                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $945,993,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $276,546,000, for a total 
program level of $1,222,539,000. This is an increase of 
$129,844,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 
(excluding supplementals) and an increase of $9,152,000 above 
the budget request.
    County Offices.--The Committee is concerned about any 
Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when 
the FSA office network is essential to helping farmers address 
critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee 
reiterates its strong view that no county office closure or 
consolidation should occur except in those locations for which 
closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to 
ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available 
to the public will not be reduced.
    Location of Commodity Sales to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC).--The Committee continues last year's 
directive to the Department to increase its outreach to 
producers and grain traders so as to increase the pool of CCC-
eligible vendors for any commodity sale. In particular, the 
Committee expects the Department to make special efforts in 
Ohio and other Great Lakes States to increase sales and 
shipments from these areas.

                         state mediation grants

2001 appropriation......................................      $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate....................................       2,993,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,993,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................................
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    This program is authorized under title V of the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address 
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues 
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural 
water loan programs, grazing on national forest system lands, 
and pesticides. Grants are made to states whose mediation 
programs have been certified by FSA. Grants will be solely for 
operation and administration of the state's agricultural 
mediation program.

                          Committee Provisions

    For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,993,000, the same as the amount available 
in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program

2001 appropriation......................................        $450,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         100,000
Provided in the bill....................................         100,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................        -350,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    Under the program, the Department makes indemnification 
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they 
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due 
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. 
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers 
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products 
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $100,000, a decrease of $350,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the 
budget request.

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

    Farm Ownership Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers 
for acquiring, enlarging, or improving farms, including farm 
buildings, land development, use, and conservation, refinancing 
indebtedness, and for loan closing costs.
    Operating Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers for 
costs incident to reorganizing a farming system for more 
profitable operations, for a variety of essential farm 
operating expenses such as purchase of livestock, farm 
equipment, feed, seed, fertilizer, and farm supplies; for 
refinancing land and water development, use, and conservation; 
for refinancing indebtedness; for other farm and home needs; 
and for loan closing costs.
    Emergency Loans.--Makes loans in designated areas where a 
natural disaster has caused a general need for agricultural 
credit which cannot be met for limited periods of time by 
private cooperatives or other responsible sources.
    Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Makes loans to any 
Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or 
tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian 
Reorganization Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted 
funds, to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe's 
reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the 
Secretary of the Interior, for use of the tribe or the 
corporation or the members thereof.
    Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Makes loans in 
conjunction with the sale of security properties previously 
acquired during the servicing of its loan portfolio.
    Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Makes loans to assist 
foundations in financing the operation of boll weevil 
eradication programs provided to farmers.

                         estimated loan levels

2001 loan level.........................................  $3,090,216,000
2002 budget estimate....................................   3,855,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................   3,855,000,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level.....................................    +764,784,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm 
ownership, farm operating, and emergency. In addition, the fund 
makes loans to associations for Indian tribe land acquisition, 
and boll weevil eradication.

                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 2002 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are: $1,128,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$128,000,000 is for direct loans and $1,000,000,000 for 
guaranteed loans; $2,600,000,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $600,000,000 is for direct loans, $500,000,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,500,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $2,000,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for emergency disaster loans; 
and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.

                      agriculture credit programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2002        Committee
                                                                  FY 2001  level     estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
    Direct......................................................        $127,722        $128,000        $128,000
    Guaranteed..................................................         868,086       1,000,000       1,000,000
Farm operating:
    Direct......................................................         522,891         600,000         600,000
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................       1,075,468       1,500,000       1,500,000
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................         369,100         500,000         500,000
Emergency disaster..............................................          24,947          25,000          25,000
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................           2,002           2,000           2,000
Boll Weevil Eradication.........................................         100,000         100,000         100,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................       3,090,216       3,855,000       3,855,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses

2001 appropriation...........................................      $67,449,000      $49,284,000     $268,861,000
2002 budget estimate.........................................       60,427,000      124,950,000      280,595,000
Provided in the bill.........................................       60,427,000      124,950,000      282,769,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation.......................................       -7,022,000      +75,666,000      +13,908,000
    2002 budget estimate.....................................  ...............  ...............       +2,174,000

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the costs of loan programs 
under credit reform:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY 2001           FY 2002          Committee
                                                                estimate          estimate         provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
  Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................       $13,756,000        $3,366,000        $3,366,000
    Guaranteed............................................         4,427,000         4,500,000         4,500,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        18,183,000         7,866,000         7,866,000
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:
    Direct................................................        47,251,000        53,580,000        53,580,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        14,738,000        52,650,000        52,650,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................        30,119,000        67,800,000        67,800,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        92,108,000       174,030,000       174,030,000
                                                           =====================================================
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................           322,000           118,000           118,000
Emergency disaster........................................         6,120,000         3,363,000         3,363,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................       116,733,000       185,377,000       185,377,000
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:
  Salaries and expenses...................................       264,731,000       272,595,000       274,769,000
  Administrative expenses.................................         4,130,000         8,000,000         8,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................       268,861,000       280,595,000       282,769,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency

2001 appropriation......................................     $65,453,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      74,752,000
Provided in the bill....................................      75,142,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      +9,689,000
    2002 budget estimate................................        +390,000

    Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) 
Act of 1996, Risk Management became an agency of the Department 
of Agriculture, known as the Risk Management Agency (RMA), 
reporting to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services.
    RMA manages program activities in support of the Federal 
crop insurance program as authorized by the Federal Crop 
Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act of 1996. Functional areas of RMA 
are research and development, insurance services, and 
compliance whose functions include policy formulation and 
procedures and regulations development. Reviews and evaluations 
are conducted for overall performance to ensure the actuarial 
soundness of the insurance program.

                          committee provisions

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $75,142,000, an increase of $9,689,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$390,000 above the budget request.

                              Corporations


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

2001 appropriation \\........................1 $2,804,660,000
2002 budget estimate..........................1 3,037,000,000
Provided in the bill..........................1 3,037,000,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................    +232,340,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Current indefinite appropriation.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace 
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment 
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy, or $200 for all 
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600 
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At 
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers 
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and 
certain other farm programs. This coverage was available either 
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under 
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 
1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility 
for emergency crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT 
coverage required to meet program requirements. Emergency loss 
assistance does not include emergency loans or payment under 
the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered 
by FSA. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began 
phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices, 
except in those areas where there are insufficient private 
insurance providers. The private companies serve as the sole 
source for CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies 
for additional ``buy-up'' coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for 
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 
percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater 
than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount is 
equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 50 
percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected 
market price and an amount of operating and administrative 
expenses.
    The reform legislation included the NAP program for 
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance 
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of 
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop 
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad 
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was 
established as part of the Risk Management Agency, under the 
FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has 
been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program 
activities.
    The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) amended 
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more 
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and 
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows 
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by 
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage 
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual 
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative 
fees for catastrophic (CAT) coverage. More crops and 
commodities will become insurable through pilot programs 
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an 
investment of over $8.2 billion in five years to further 
improve Federal crop insurance.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary (estimated to be $3,037,000,000 in the President's 
fiscal year 2002 Budget Request), an increase of $232,340,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same as 
the budget request.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

     The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under 
the laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United 
States, and was managed and operated in close affiliation with 
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was 
transferred to the Department of Agriculture by the President's 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established 
as an agency and instrumentality of the United States under a 
permanent Federal charter by Public Law 80-806, as amended. Its 
operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other 
specific legislation.
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation also makes available materials and facilities 
required in connection with the storage and distribution of 
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for 
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of 
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive 
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the 
duration of conservation reserve program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996; 
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).
    The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production 
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed 
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple 
(ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for 
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The 
1996 Act also requires a milk price support program that begins 
after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31, 
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product 
processors. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-78 extends 
the milk price support program through January, 2001.
    The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation 
acreage reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the 
conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve 
program (WRP), and the environmental quality incentives program 
(EQIP). Each of these programs is funded through the 
Corporation.
    The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded 
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option; 
flood risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives, 
and farmland protection programs.
    The Corporation is managed by a board of directors 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject 
to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the 
board. The board consists of six members, in addition to the 
Secretary, who are designated according to their positions in 
the Department of Agriculture.
    Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA 
state and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used 
to carry out Corporation activities.
    The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to 
$30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal Treasury and 
may also be borrowed from private lending agencies.
    The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation are as follows:
    In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its 
annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the 
Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is 
authorized to use its general powers only to--
          (a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities 
        through loans, purchases, payments, and other 
        operations.
          (b) Make available materials and facilities required 
        in connection with the production and marketing of 
        agricultural commodities.
          (c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to 
        other government agencies, foreign governments, and 
        domestic, foreign or international relief or 
        rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic 
        requirements.
          (d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or 
        disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
          (e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural 
        commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of 
        domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the 
        development of new and additional markets, marketing 
        facilities, and uses for such commodities.
          (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural 
        commodities.
          (g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs 
        authorized by law.
          (h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress 
        may specifically authorize or provide.

                 Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses

2001 appropriation.............................        1 $25,264,441,000
2002 budget estimate...........................         1 23,116,000,000
Provided in the bill...........................       \1\ 23,116,000,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation.........................           -2,148,441,000
    2002 budget estimate.......................  .......................

\1\ Current indefinite appropriation.

    If necessary to perform the functions, duties, obligations, 
or commitments of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
administrative personnel and others serving the Corporation 
shall be paid from funds on hand or from those funds received 
from the redemption or sale of commodities. Such funds shall 
also be available to meet program payments, commodity loans, or 
other obligations of the Corporation.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 
necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but 
not previously reimbursed (estimated to be $23,116,000,000 in 
the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request), a decrease of 
$2,148,441,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 
and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee does not recommend language as requested that 
would give the Corporation the flexibility to receive 
reimbursement of actual realized losses incurred to date during 
the current fiscal year, in addition to the most recent actual 
fiscal year.

       Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

2001 limitation................................               $5,000,000
2002 budget estimate...........................                5,000,000
Provided in the bill...........................                5,000,000
Comparison:
    2001 limitation............................  .......................
    2002 budget estimate.......................  .......................

    The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) hazardous waste 
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, as amended.
    Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the 
management of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA's 
hazardous waste management appropriation. CCC funds operations 
and maintenance costs only.

                          Committee Provisions

    For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste 
Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000, 
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the 
same as the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

2001 appropriation......................................        $709,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         730,000
Provided in the bill....................................         736,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................         +27,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +6,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out 
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural 
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$736,000, an increase of $27,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $6,000 above the budget 
request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is the 
lead Federal conservation agency for private land. SCS was 
established in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil 
and water conservation on the Nation's private and non-Federal 
land. NRCS was established by the Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The agency combines 
the authorities of the former SCS and directs financial or 
technical assistance programs for natural resource 
conservation.
    NRCS provides America's private land conservation through 
local conservation districts to individuals, communities, 
watershed groups, tribal governments, Federal, state, and local 
agencies, and others. The NRCS staff at the local level work 
with state and local conservation staff and volunteers in a 
partnership to assist individuals and communities to care for 
natural resources. NRCS also develops technical guidance for 
conservation planning and assistance. This technical guidance 
is tailored to local conditions and is widely used by NRCS 
staff and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to 
ensure that conservation is based on sound science.
    The benefits of these activities are multifaceted, 
including sustained and improved agricultural productivity; 
cleaner, safer, and more dependable water supplies; reduced 
damages caused by floods and other natural disasters; and an 
enhanced natural resource base to support continued economic 
development, recreation, and the environment.

                        Conservation Operations

2001 appropriation....................................      $712,545,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       773,454,000
Provided in the bill..................................       782,762,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +70,217,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +9,308,000

    The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain 
agricultural productivity and protect and enhance the natural 
resource base. This is done through providing America's private 
land conservation to land users, communities, units of state 
and local government, and other Federal agencies in planning 
and implementing natural resources solutions to reduce erosion, 
improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and 
conserve wetlands, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, improve 
air quality, improve pasture and range conditions, reduce 
upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also 
provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL), wetlands 
(swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and conservation 
reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act, 
as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990, the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, and the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

                          committee provisions

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $782,762,000, an increase of $70,217,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$9,308,000 above the budget request.
    Pay cost.--The Committee has included $24,417,000 for 
fiscal year 2002 pay costs.
    State funding allocations.--The Committee is concerned that 
funding allocations to the States are being reduced in 
proportion to Congressional earmarks funded in the Conservation 
Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the 
NRCS, in making the fiscal year 2002 Conservation Operations 
funding allocations to the States, to treat Congressional 
earmarks as additions to the States' funding allocation. The 
Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the Committee 
on Appropriations, not later than 45 days after the enactment 
of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2001 
Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal year 2002 
Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal year 
2002 Congressional earmarks by State, and the total 
conservation operations allocation by State.
    Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee 
includes legislative language that provides $20,000,000 for the 
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the current funding level.
    Assistance to livestock producers.--The Committee urges 
NRCS to target assistance to assist livestock producers comply 
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 
Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 
for Concentrated Feeding Operations issued by the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Small and mid-sized producers are facing 
extreme financial hardships that will possibly result in the 
closure of operations throughout the country.
    National Water Management Center.--The Committee encourages 
the NRCS to provide adequate funding to the National Water 
Management Center in Lonoke, AR.
    Project continuations.--The Committee has provided funding 
for the following as project continuations: $290,000 for 
cooperative efforts with Delaware State University; $725,000 
for the Great Lakes Basin Program; $500,000 to promote 
pastureland management and rotational grazing in Central New 
York; $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois; 
$1,500,000 for a program to improve telecommunications 
capabilities in remote areas of New Mexico serving mostly 
minority or disadvantaged populations; $250,000 to design and 
implement natural stream restoration initiatives in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands of which $125,000 shall be for the Canaan 
Valley Institute and $125,000 for the NRCS office in 
Morgantown, West Virginia; $200,000 for the soil survey 
geographic database to conduct digitized soil surveys in the 
Mid-Atlantic Highlands in conjunction with the Canaan Valley 
Institute; $125,000 for a pilot AFO/CAFO project in Utah in 
cooperation with the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah Cattlemen 
Association, and the Utah Dairymen Association; $250,000 to 
establish best management practices to individual farmers to 
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of 
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds; 
$250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in 
the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $100,000 for the Trees Forever 
Program in Iowa; and $5,000,000 for the continued 
implementation and acceleration of pilot projects for 
innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 percent 
reduction in nutrients of wastewater discharged by animal 
feeding operations and associated animal processing facilities 
implemented by the not-for-profit Agriculture Facilities 
Administration & Management Corporation (``AFAM''), and 
entities such as the North Carolina Agricultural Finance 
Authority contracted by AFAM to assist in selecting, funding, 
implementing and evaluating innovative technology systems 
through pilot projects.
    New projects and/or continuations/increases.--The Committee 
has included funding for the following continued projects with 
increases or new projects: $600,000 for innovative, 
collaborative approaches to protecting the resources of the 
Monterey Bay Sanctuary, an increase of $100,000; $150,000 for a 
cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Department of 
Agriculture to expand the Wisconsin grazing lands initiative to 
augment the funding that this initiative is receiving through 
the environmental quality incentives program; $150,000 for the 
digitization and certification of all published soil surveys 
for Puerto Rico to be made available through the Internet; 
$500,000 to the State of Alabama Soil and Water Conservation 
Committee for the Sand Mountain Water Quality Conservation 
Project; an additional $575,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission for a 
total of $1,000,000; $350,000 for technical assistance to the 
Westchester Soil and Conservation District to address land use 
and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound, an 
increase of $50,000; $650,000 for technical assistance to 
implement the second phase of a multi-year agreement between 
NRCS and the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) in Walton, 
NY, of which $80,000 should be designated for perpetual 
stewardship funding for easements purchased by the WAC's Whole 
Farm Easement Program; $300,000 for technical assistance to the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Soil Conservation Project, an increase of 
$50,000; $125,000 for an agriculture enhancement/open space 
plan in CA; $1,000,000 for a cooperative agreement with the 
Manatee (FL) Agriculture Water Reuse System project; $300,000 
for the Beaver Swamp Brook project in New York; $600,000 for 
the refinement, integration, and implementation of computer 
tools to improve nutrient management planning on dairy farms in 
New York; $50,000 for the evaluation of dairy cattle manure as 
a biofuel in North Carolina; $1,000,000 for the Maumee 
Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Plan in 
northwest Ohio; $500,000 to facilitate water conservation and 
efficient irrigation activities in the Bexar, Medina, Uvalde 
Counties (TX) area of the Edwards Aquifer; $1,500,000 for a 
field office telecommunications pilot program in West Texas; 
$2,000,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Global 
Environment Management Education Center land use program at 
Stevens Point, WI; and $600,000 for a watershed management 
demonstration program.
    Embrass River/Shad Lake.--The Committee encourages the NRCS 
to provide technical assistance for the Embrass River Watershed 
and Shad Lake in Illinois.
    Illinois River Basin.--The Committee directs the NRCS to 
use up to $600,000 in EQIP funds for conservation measures in 
the Illinois River Basin.
    Urban encroachment.--The Committee recognizes the major 
difficulties created by the encroachment of urban areas on 
rural areas. The Committee believes that there is a need to 
develop a more comprehensive and integrated view of 
transportation, land use by commercial, residential, 
agricultural, and public entities. The Committee directs the 
Service to develop a proposal for such a comprehensive view, 
including consultation with entities such as the American 
Farmland Trust and the Nature Conservancy. In the development 
of this proposal, the Committee expects the Service to identify 
pilot projects for this activity, including highway development 
in northwest Ohio.
    Conservation Reserve Program.--The Committee has included 
$39,000,000 for technical assistance for the conservation 
reserve program, of which $8,500,000 shall be derived from CCC 
section 11 reimbursements.
    Watershed Management and Demonstration.--The Committee has 
provided funding for a cooperative agreement with the Texas 
Institute of Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) for 
watershed management and demonstration projects coordinated 
jointly by the National Pork Producers Council, Iowa Soybean 
Association and TIAER. The projects will utilize water quality 
research, demonstrating a voluntary and incentive driven 
certification program that will help row crop and livestock 
agricultural producers comply with national environmental water 
quality regulations. The Committee encourages NRCS to work with 
these groups to identify additional federal resources available 
for the demonstration program and provide necessary technical 
assistance.
    Water quality/Upper White River Basin, MO.--The Committee 
directs the NRCS to study the establishment of a water quality 
office serving the Upper White River Basin in Missouri. The 
Committee directs the Service to report on the five-year cost, 
and the level of financial and human resources that would be 
required to establish such an office. The Committee directs the 
Service to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations 
by March 1, 2002 on this issue.
    Source Water Protection Initiative.--NRCS is strongly 
encouraged to provide support and assistance to the local 
watershed associations in Ohio, Indiana and Missouri working on 
the Source Water Protection Initiative.
    Weed It Now.--The Committee directs the NRCS to fund the 
Nature Conservancy's Weed It Now (WIN) initiative in the 
Southern Taconic Mountains of Massachusetts, New York, and 
Connecticut.
    Forest Health.--In light of severe damage to forest health 
from the pine beetle infestation in Tennessee, the Committee 
recognizes the need for reforestation activities as a result of 
this devastating outbreak and strongly encourages the Secretary 
of Agriculture to work with Tennessee's state forester to 
mitigate this emergency.

                     watershed surveys and planning

2001 appropriation....................................       $10,844,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        10,960,000
Provided in the bill..................................        11,030,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +186,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................           +70,000

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public 
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of 
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section 
6 of the Act provided for the establishment of the River Basin 
Surveys and Investigations Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A 
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal 
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation, 
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
    River Basin activities provide for cooperation with other 
Federal, state, and local agencies in making investigations and 
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a 
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of 
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide 
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream 
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a 
basis of coordination of this development with downstream and 
other phases of water development.
    Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation 
between the Federal government and the states and their 
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. 
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of 
improvement of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and 
reduction of sedimentation in the watershed of rivers and 
streams and to further the conservation, development, 
utilization, and disposal of water. Watershed planning consists 
of assisting local organizations to develop their watershed 
work plan by making investigations and surveys in response to 
requests made by sponsoring local organizations. These plans 
describe the soil erosion, water management, and sedimentation 
problems in a watershed and works of improvement proposed to 
alleviate these problems. Plans also include estimated benefits 
and costs, cost sharing and operating and maintenance 
arrangements, and other appropriate information necessary to 
justify Federal assistance for carrying out the plan.

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $11,030,000, an increase of $186,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$70,000 above the budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

2001 appropriation \1\................................       $99,224,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       100,413,000
Provided in the bill..................................       105,743,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +6,519,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +5,330,000
\1\ Excludes $110 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  provided in P.L. 106-387


    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public 
Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-
1009), provides for cooperation among the Federal government, 
the states, and local political subdivisions in a program to 
prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the 
watersheds or rivers and streams, and to further the 
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water.
    The work of the Department under this item includes 
financial assistance for the installation of works of 
improvement specified in approved watershed work plans 
including structural measures, land treatment measures, and 
program evaluation studies in selected watershed projects to 
determine the effectiveness of structural and land treatment 
measures installed. In addition, NRCS makes loans to local 
organizations to finance the local share of the costs of 
installing planned works of improvement.

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $105,743,000, an 
increase of $6,519,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $5,330,000 above the budget 
request. Language is included which limits the amount spent on 
technical assistance to not more than $45,514,000.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following projects: the four pilot projects in North 
Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; Glen 
Shoals Lake in Illinois; Little Red River and the Big Slough 
Watersheds in Arkansas; Soap Creek Watershed in Iowa; and the 
Chino Dairy Preserve, San Bernardino, California.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide technical and 
financial assistance to the following projects: Wet Walnut 
Creek Watershed in Kansas; Truth or Consequences/Williamsburg 
Arroyos Watershed in New Mexico; Caney Creek project in Grayson 
County, KY; the Swan Porter (NC) Project; Bayou Bourbeux 
Watershed Project in Opelousas, LA; to address flooding 
problems in Lavaca, AR; and Town Creek in Carthage, MS.
    Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed.--The Committee directs the 
NRCS to fund the Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed project in 
Texas at the future obligation request level proposed by the 
Texas-NRCS.
    DuPage County, IL.--The Committee includes funds for DuPage 
County, Illinois for financial and technical assistance at the 
same level provided in fiscal year 2001.
    Beardsley Wash Watershed.--The Committee urges the NRCS to 
complete the Beardsley Wash Watershed Project in Ventura 
County, CA.
    Snake River Project.--The Committee urges the NRCS to 
complete the Snake River Project in Warren, MN.
    Oven Run Project.--The Committee urges the NRCS to complete 
the sixth and final site on the Oven Run (PA) project.
    Devils Lake.--The Committee is aware of continued flooding 
in the Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the 
lake has risen 25 feet over the last several years. The 
Committee encourages, the NRCS in cooperation with the FSA to 
assist in the locally coordinated flood response and water 
management activities being developed with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. NRCS and FSA utilize conservation 
programs in providing water holding and storage areas on 
private land as necessary intermediate measures in watershed 
management.

                 resource conservation and development

2001 appropriation....................................       $41,923,000
2002 budget estimate..................................        43,048,000
Provided in the bill..................................        48,361,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +6,438,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +5,313,000

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the 
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work 
plans for resource conservation and development projects in 
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs 
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups 
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to 
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions 
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make 
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development 
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and 
water conservation practices.

                          committee provisions

    For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $48,361,000, an increase of 
$6,438,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $5,313,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee notes that in addition to the 25 new RC&D; 
councils that were funded in fiscal year 2001, an additional 8 
councils were funded from the Fund for Rural America. The 
annual cost for these eight councils is approximately 
$1,000,000. The Committee has included funds to maintain 
funding for these eight councils. In addition, the Committee 
has included $1,438,000 to cover the fiscal year 2002 pay cost. 
The Committee directs that $3,000,000 be used to fund the 
backlog of 27 pending applications for new councils, and 
$1,000,000 be used to increase the per council allocation 
closer to the $161,000 level recommended by the USDA.

                      forestry incentives program

2001 appropriation......................................      $6,311,000
2002 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      -6,311,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the 
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its 
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and 
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. The program 
will be carried out by providing technical assistance and long-
term cost sharing agreements with private landowners.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee concurs with the President's budget and does 
not provide funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. This 
program promotes timber production on private lands, and in 
support of the budget these efforts will be continued through 
the State and Private Forestry program in the Forest Service.

                   agricultural conservation program

                         (rescission of funds)

    The Committee has included a rescission of Agricultural 
Conservation Program funds that were made available under 
Public Law 104-37. This program was terminated at the beginning 
of 1997 in accordance with the 1996 Farm Bill. The USDA has 
indicated that there are no plans to obligate any of these 
funds.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing Service, Rural 
Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service and 
placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for 
Rural Development. These agencies deliver a variety of programs 
through a network of state, district, and county offices.
    In the 1930's and 1940's these agencies were primarily 
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these 
agencies have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout 
all America providing loan and grant assistance for single 
family, multi-family, housing, and special housing needs, as 
well as a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and 
business development programs.

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

2001 appropriation......................................        $604,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         623,000
Provided in the bill....................................         628,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................         +24,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +5,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development 
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws 
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural 
economic and community development activities. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing 
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural 
Utilities Service.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$628,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget 
request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following organizations or projects requesting 
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and 
other rural development programs only when such applications 
are judged to be meritorious when subject to established review 
procedures: funds to Taylor County, FL to expand water service 
into unincorporated areas and for a wastewater treatment plant; 
funds for a water treatment facility for the City of Toloun, 
IL; assistance for a new water well for the Village of 
Granville, IL; funds for a wastewater system for the City of 
Armington, IL; VAW water service for Bankhead Forest, Lawrence 
County, AL; grant to Marion County, AL for Agri-Civic Center; 
grant for community development for the City of Port Allen, LA; 
water/wastewater improvements for Livingston Parish, LA; 
Ascension Parish (LA) for water/wastewater improvements; 
community development and infrastructure for Iberville Parish, 
LA; community development for Clinton, LA; historic building 
repair for St. Helena Parish, LA; assistance to Craig, Floyd, 
and Grayson Counties, VA for Industrial Shell Buildings; 
assistance to develop business incubators in Buchanan County 
and for the Virginia Highlands incubator; assistance for the 
Southwest Regional Enterprise Center, VA; assistance to the 
Dickinson County, VA kitchen incubator; Oklahoma Center for 
Rural Development at Northeastern State University; grant to 
Buck Spring 4-H Center in Warren County, NC; Cross Plains, TN 
for a new sewer system; assistance for a Rural Development 
Center at Louisiana Tech University; assistance for a public 
safety communication system in Curry County, OR; grant to the 
City of Washington, PA Recreation and Community Economic 
Development Center; assistance to the Lawrence County, PA Fair 
board for a 4-H barn; grant to the City of Falfurrais, TX for 
street storm drain and sewer repair; assistance for water/
sewer/roads at Dunn Richman Research Park, IL; a grant to the 
City of Jasper, FL to expand water and sewer systems; new water 
system for Brookport, IL; rescheduling or forgiveness for rural 
development loans issued to the Green County, KY Sanitation 
District #1; assistance to expand the Western Kentucky Growers 
Cooperative; funds for the Southern Plains Conference Center in 
Woodward, OK; assistance to the City of Chatahoochee (FL) to 
upgrade wastewater treatment plant; funds for a community 
facility for the City of Greensburg, PA; the Vandalia (WV) 
Heritage Foundations Program for Revitalization through 
community development; funds to construct livestock barns, a 
vocational agriculture complex, and exhibit hall at the 
Antalope Valley (CA) Fairgrounds; funds to construct an 
equestrian center at the Erie County Fairgrounds in Hamburg, 
New York; rural development through the internet in MS; 
assistance to construct a wastewater treatment facility to 
serve Oxnard, CA and the Port Hueneme (CA) Water Agency; funds 
for a wastewater treatment facility for the City of Negaunee, 
MI; grant to Lamar County, AL for safe water; funds for a rural 
event center business development project, Rio Arriba County, 
(NM); funds to construct the second phase of the Paseo del 
Canon Drainage Channel in Taos, NM; assistance to improve the 
Alcalde (NM) water system; grant to the Town of Spinger, NM to 
improve wastewater treatment; funds for a water pipeline in San 
Jon, NM; assistance to the City of Greenville (FL) for water 
system improvements; funds for a wastewater treatment plant in 
Questa, NM; funds to assist with the development of the Purdue 
Regional Technology Center (IN); grant to Klamath and Lake 
Counties (OR) for the development of a geothermal--agricultural 
industrial park; assistance to Rural Enterprises Inc. for 
development, marketing, implementation of a rural 
infrastructure tax-exempt loan pool through a bond issue in 
Durant, OK; assistance to Wakulla County (FL) to expand water/
wastewater; a rural business enterprise grant for a value-added 
export center at Arkansas State University; a rural business 
opportunity grant for a cheese processing facility in 
Washington County, VA; a rural business opportunity grant to 
the West Central (OH) Port Authority; grant for improvements to 
St. James Parish and St. John (LA) Parish water/wastewater 
systems; assistance to the Kiski Basin Initiative Economic 
Action Program (PA); assistance for the development and 
construction of the Agribusiness Center in Statesboro, GA; 
assistance to Gadsden County (FL) Agriculture Center expansion; 
grant to the City of Lee (FL) for wastewater treatment 
improvements; funds for water/wastewater improvement in Madison 
County, FL; a grant to the Suwannee River (FL) Water Management 
District to build new sewer lines into the system; funds to 
assist in the development of ``The Chavez Center'' in Keene, 
CA; funds for wastewater treatment systems in Goldsboro, 
Henderson, Marydel, Templeville, Carpenter's Point, Willards, 
and Cecilton (MD); assistance for slaughterhouse/processing 
modernization in Vermont; a grant to establish a molded 
strawboard manufacturing plant in northwest Ohio; assistance to 
help fund a Mobile Asthma Care Program at Valley Children's 
Hospital (CA); funds to establish a Pediatric Nursing 
Internship Program at Valley Children's Hospital (CA); 
financial assistance for design work on the Commonwealth Agri-
Energy Ethanol Production Plant (KY); assistance to Jefferson 
County (MS) for water and sewer facilities; Phase III of the 
Regional Waste water collection system Homosassa (FL); funds 
for neighborhood revitalization program for Alachua County, FL; 
financial assistance to the Indian Waters Central Sewer 
Project, Citrus County, FL; consideration for funds to St. 
Tammany Parish, Washington Parish and Tangipahoa Parish (LA) to 
expand water service into unincorporated areas, and provide 
wastewater improvements to existing facilities; funds for 
Village of Deposit (NY) for municipal water system upgrades; 
South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe Regional 
Planning Agency for surface and ground water improvements in 
the Lake Tahoe Basin; grant to upgrade and repair the municipal 
sewer system in the Village of Saugerties, New York; and water 
system improvements in Aberdeen, ID.
    The Committee has included $200,000 to fund the completion 
of a study underway by the National Ground Water Association.

                rural development salaries and expenses

                                                                                                    Committee
                                                            FY 2001 estimate  FY 2002 estimate     provisions

Appropriations............................................      $130,084,000      $133,722,000      $134,733,000
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account.....       408,333,000       419,741,000       422,910,000
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans            34,640,000        35,604,000        36,322,000
     Program Account......................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................         2,993,000                 0         3,107,000
    Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account..............                 0         3,082,000                 0
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account...........         3,632,000         3,733,000         3,761,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD Salaries and Expenses.....................       579,682,000       595,882,000       600,833,000


    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing 
Service and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including 
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and 
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and 
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in 
rural areas.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                          committee provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 
areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $134,733,000, 
an increase of $4,649,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $1,011,000 above the budget 
request.

                  rural community advancement program

2001 appropriation...................................... \1\$760,864,000
2002 budget estimate....................................     692,125,000
Provided in the bill....................................     767,465,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      +6,601,000
    2002 budget estimate................................     +75,340,000

\1\ Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding 
provided by P.L. 106-387.

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will 
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to 
applicant needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, funding will be allocated to rural 
development State directors for their priority setting on a 
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to 
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account 
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any 
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for 
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural 
community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, 
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated 
for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, 
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities 
providing essential services to rural residents. Such 
facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development such as fire and rescue services, health 
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social, 
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for 
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open 
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the 
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 
funds.
    The Community Facility Grant program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), would be used in conjunction with the existing 
direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of 
community facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and 
community centers. Grants will be targeted to the lowest income 
communities. Communities that have lower population and income 
levels would receive a higher cost-share contribution through 
these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the 
cost of developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made not to exceed 
$1,500,000 annually to public bodies and private nonprofit 
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made 
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train, 
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and 
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct 
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development; and to establish centers for training, technology, 
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the 
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, 
309A, and 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes 
loans for water and waste development costs. Development loans 
are made to associations, including corporations operating on a 
nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar organizations, 
generally designated as public or quasipublic agencies that 
propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, 
purification, and distribution of domestic water or the 
collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. 
Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of the development cost 
of the projects and can supplement other funds borrowed or 
furnished by applicants to pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as 
amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                          committee provisions

    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations as compared to the budget request:

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2001      FY 2002     Committee
                                      level       estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
    Community facility loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0            0
        Direct...................      $29,161      $13,545      $13,545
    Community facility grants....       23,947       18,958       20,958
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, housing......       53,108       32,503       34,503
                                  ======================================
Business:
    Business and industry loans:
        Guaranteed...............      $13,354      $27,400      $27,400
        Direct...................        2,904            0            0
    Rural business enterprise           45,564       40,568       42,568
     grants......................
    Rural business opportunity           2,993        3,000        4,000
     grants......................
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, business.....       64,815       70,968       73,968
                                  ======================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal
     loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0            0
        Direct...................     $109,953      $55,664      $55,664
    Water and waste disposal           529,498      529,490      599,830
     grants......................
    Solid waste management grants        3,492        3,500        3,500
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, utilities....      642,942      588,654      658,994
                                  ======================================
          Total, loans and grants   \1\760,864      692,125      767,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $210 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding
  provided by P.L. 106-387.

    The following earmarks are included in bill language for 
the Rural Community Advancement Program: $24,000,000 for 
Federally recognized Native American Tribes, of which 
$4,000,000 is for community facilities grants to tribal 
colleges, and of which $250,000 is for transportation technical 
assistance; $6,000,000 for the Rural Community Development 
Initiative; $500,000 for rural transportation technical 
assistance; $2,000,000 for grants to Mississippi Delta Region 
counties; $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems in 
the Colonias; $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems 
in Alaska; $16,215,000 for technical assistance for rural water 
and waste systems; $11,000,000 for a circuit rider program; and 
$37,624,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
(EZ/EC) and communities designated by the Secretary of 
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, of which 
$1,163,000 is for community facilities, of which $27,431,000 
shall be for rural utilities programs, and of which $9,030,000 
shall be for the rural business and cooperative development 
programs.
    Circuit rider program.--The Committee has provided 
$11,000,000 for a circuit rider program. The Committee expects 
that this will provide sufficient funds for a third circuit 
rider in each of the states.
    Rural Community Development Initiative.--The Committee has 
provided $6,000,000 for the RCDI. The Committee notes that no 
fiscal year 2001 funds have been obligated to date for this 
program. The Committee directs the USDA to provide a report to 
the Committee on Appropriations by February 1, 2002, on the 
demand for this program.
    Rural Community Assistance Programs.--The Committee directs 
that, of the funds provided for rural waste systems, $7,300,000 
is designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs.
    Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.--The Committee is 
concerned that the Department is not properly awarding the full 
complement of discretionary points to applications for rural 
development programs submitted by the Sullivan-Wawarsing Rural 
Economic Area Partnership Zone. The Committee directs the 
Department to comply with the Memoranda of Agreement signed by 
the Secretary on May 10, 1999 establishing the Zone regarding 
the award of discretionary points.

                         Rural Housing Service

    The Rural Housing Service (RHS) was established under 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
    The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of 
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and 
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and 
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives 
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization 
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic 
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural 
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all 
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to 
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically 
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while 
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs 
that work in partnership with state and local governments and 
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits 
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially 
guaranteed loans.

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                    ESTIMATED LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS

2001 loan and grant levels............................    $4,476,160,000
2002 budget estimate..................................     4,470,648,000
Provided in the bill..................................     4,470,648,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level...................................        -5,512,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................


    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made 
to construct, improve, alter, repair or replace dwellings and 
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, 
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to 
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans, are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor 
housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a 
public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest 
living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor. 
Loan programs are limited to rural areas which include towns, 
villages, and other places of not more than 10,000 population, 
which are not part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in 
areas with a population in excess of 10,000, but less than 
20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan 
statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for 
low- and moderate-income borrowers.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Housing Insurance Fund program account:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2001 level     FY 2002 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans and Grant:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................         $1,064,651         $1,064,650         $1,064,650
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................          3,136,429          3,137,968          3,137,968
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................            114,070            114,068            114,068
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................             99,780             99,770             99,770
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................             32,324             32,324             32,324
    Credit sales of acquired property..................             11,779             11,778             11,778
    Housing site development (sec. 524)................              5,152              5,090              5,090
    Self-help housing land development fund............              4,998              5,000              5,000
    Modular Housing Demonstration:
        Loans..........................................              1,988                  0                  0
        Grants.........................................              4,989                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan authorization........................          4,476,160          4,470,648          4,470,648
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   estimated loan subsidy, grants, and administrative expenses levels

                                                    Direct loan     Guaranteed                    Administrative
                                                      subsidy      loan  subsidy      Grants          expenses

2001 appropriation..............................    $240,190,000      $8,901,000      $4,989,000    $408,333,000
2002 budget estimate............................     199,800,000      44,087,000               0     419,741,000
Provided in the bill............................     199,800,000      44,087,000               0     422,910,000
Comparison:
  2001 appropriation............................     -40,390,000     +35,186,000      -4,989,000     +14,577,000
  2002 budget estimate..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............      +3,169,000


    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well 
as for administrative expenses.
    The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 2001 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by the Office of Management and Budget.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2001 level     FY 2002 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan
 subsidies):
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................           $170,983           $140,108           $140,108
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................              7,384             40,166             40,166
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................             56,202             48,274             48,274
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................              1,517              3,921              3,921
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................             11,456             10,386             10,386
    Credit sales of acquired property..................                872                750                750
    Housing site development (sec. 524)................                  0                 28                 28
    Self-help housing land development fund............                278                254                254
    Modular Housing Demonstration:
        Loans..........................................                399                  0                  0
        Grants.........................................              4,989                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies............................            254,080            243,887            243,887
RHIF expenses:
    Administrative expenses............................            408,333            419,741            422,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       rental assistance program

2001 appropriation....................................      $678,504,000
2002 budget estimate..................................       693,504,000
Provided in the bill..................................       693,504,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +15,000,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
established a rural rental assistance program to be 
administered through the rural housing loans programs.
    The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by 
low-income families living in Rural Housing Service financed 
rental projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this 
program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 
30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of 
monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments from a 
welfare agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service Section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by low-income 
families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts 
authority to existing contracts; any remaining authority will 
be used for projects receiving new construction commitments 
under Sections 514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families 
with certain limitations.

                          committee provisions

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $693,504,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the 
budget request.

                  mutual and self-help housing grants

2001 appropriation......................................     $33,925,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      33,925,000
Provided in the bill....................................      33,925,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................................
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing 
Act of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations 
to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs 
under which groups of usually six to ten families build their 
own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to 
pay the cost of construction supervisors who will work with 
families in the construction of their homes and for 
administrative expenses of the organizations providing the 
self-help assistance.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $33,925,000, the same as the 
amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget 
request.

                       farm labor program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Loan level       Subsidy level        Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 appropriation........................................       $28,460,000       $14,967,000       $14,967,000
2002 budget estimate......................................        28,459,000        13,464,000        14,967,000
Provided in the bill......................................        28,459,000        13,464,000        17,967,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation....................................            -1,000        -1,503,000        +3,000,000
    2002 budget estimate..................................  ................  ................        +3,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized 
under section 514, and the rural housing for domestic farm 
labor housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of 
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and 
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent 
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for 
construction of new structures, site acquisition and 
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and 
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining 
halls, community rooms and infirmaries.

                          committee provisions

    For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides 
a loan subsidy of $13,464,000 which supports a loan level of 
$28,459,000, a decrease of $1,503,000 in loan subsidy and a 
decrease of $1,000 in loan level below the amount available in 
fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee also provides an additional $17,967,000 in grants, an 
increase of $3,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget 
request. Of the $17,967,000 in grants, $15,000,000 is for farm 
labor housing grants and $2,967,000 is for grants for migrant 
and seasonal farmworkers.
    The Committee notes that the Administration has provided 
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $1,500,000 in 
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $2,852,000 for 
farmworker housing for fiscal year 2001. These additional 
funding levels are not indicated in the previous table.

                    rural housing assistance grants

2001 appropriation......................................     $43,903,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      38,914,000
Provided in the bill....................................      38,914,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      -4,989,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The following programs are consolidated under the Rural 
Housing Assistance Grants: very low-income housing repair 
grants, rural housing preservation grants, compensation for 
construction defects, and supervisory and technical assistance 
grants.
    The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is 
authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of 
1949, as amended. The program makes grants to very low-income 
families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to 
make such dwellings, safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to 
the health of the occupants, their families, or the community. 
A grant can be made in combination with a Section 504 very low-
income housing repair loan.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair 
for low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the 
preservation program is to improve the delivery of 
rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing 
organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will 
compete on a state-by-state basis for grants funds. These funds 
may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to 
finance home repair. The program is administered by local 
grantees.
    Compensation for Construction Defects provides funds for 
grants to eligible section 502 borrowers to correct structural 
defects, or to pay claims of owners arising from such defects 
on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial 
assistance.
    The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is 
carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of 
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants 
are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for 
packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502, 
504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
amended. The assistance is directed to underserved areas where 
at least 20 percent or more of the population is at or below 
the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the 
population resides in substandard housing. Under section 525, 
grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations 
and other associations for the developing, conducting, 
administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory 
assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal, 
State, and local housing programs for low-income families in 
rural areas.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $38,914,000, a decrease 
of $4,989,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 
and the same as the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

    The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) was 
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance 
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously 
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural 
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural 
Cooperative Service.
    The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to 
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by 
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses 
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and 
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in 
rural America through financial assistance, sound business 
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research, 
education, and information; (2) support environmentally-
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire 
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are 
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis 
on those most in need.

                          committee provisions

    Current economic conditions, together with the rapid 
changes taking place throughout the global economy, underscore 
the need for policies and programs to strengthen the ability of 
farmers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts to 
improve their income, manage their risk, move more into value-
added production and processing, and capture a larger share of 
the consumer dollar. Programs carried out by Cooperative 
Services within the Rural Business and Cooperative Service as 
authorized under the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 
U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b)), including those related to research, 
education and technical assistance, play an important role in 
helping promote such cooperative self-help efforts for the 
benefit of farmers. Accordingly, the Committee believes such 
programs should be given a high priority to ensure the levels 
of funding and staffing necessary to meet their objectives.

              rural development loan fund program account

                          estimated loan level

2001 loan level.........................................     $38,172,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      38,171,000
Provided in the bill....................................      38,171,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level.....................................          -1,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, 
community development corporations private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of 
improving business, industry, community facilities, and 
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in 
rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2002, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $38,171,000, a decrease 
of $1,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the 
same as the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the Administration has provided 
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $2,000,000 in 
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $7,671,000 for 
fiscal year 2001. These additional funding levels are not 
indicated in the previous table.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2001 appropriation..................       $19,433,000        $3,632,000
2002 budget estimate................        16,494,000         3,733,000
Provided in the bill................        16,494,000         3,761,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..............        -2,939,000          +129,000
    2002 budget estimates...........  ................           +28,000

            rural economic development loans program account

                          estimated loan level

2001 loan level.........................................     $14,969,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      14,966,000
Provided in the bill....................................      14,966,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level.....................................          -3,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The rural economic development loans program was 
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L. 
100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 
by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural 
Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of 
credits payment program and created the rural economic 
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized 
under the Act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero 
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for 
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies, 
start-up costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose 
of fostering rural economic development.

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans program account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $14,966,000, a 
decrease of $3,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 
2001 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the Administration has provided 
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $3,000,000 in 
loan subsidy which supports a loan level of $5,892,000 for 
fiscal year 2001. These additional funding levels are not 
indicated in the previous table.

                         estimated loan subsidy

                                                     Direct loan subsidy
2001 appropriation......................................  \1\ $3,902,000
2002 budget estimate....................................   \1\ 3,616,000
Provided in the bill....................................   \1\ 3,616,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................        -286,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit 
payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act 
of 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  rural cooperative development grants

2001 appropriation....................................    \1\ $6,486,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         6,486,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,500,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................        +1,014,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................        +1,014,000

    \1\ Excludes $10 million less 0.22% rescission in emergency funding 
provided by P.L. 106-387.

    Rural Cooperative Development Grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-federal sources. Grants are competitive and 
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA) 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State department of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204(b). The funds are used for Cooperative Research 
Agreements, primarily with colleges and universities to address 
critical operational, organizational and structural issues 
facing cooperatives.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $7,500,000, an increase of 
$1,014,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $1,014,000 above the budget request.
    Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,500,000 is provided 
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

2001 appropriation....................................         (\1\)
2002 budget estimate..................................       $14,967,000
Provided in the bill..................................        14,967,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................       +14,967,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

\1\ Funds provided in P.L. 106-377 in fiscal year 2001.

    The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized five new 
empowerment zones, and 20 new enterprise communities were 
authorized by the 1999 Appropriations Act. These 25 designated 
EZ/ECs make up Round II. The goal of the Empowerment Zone/
Enterprise Community Initiative is to revitalize rural 
communities in a manner that attracts private sector investment 
and thereby provides self-sustaining community and economic 
development. The first three years of the ten years authorized 
for Round II EZ/ECs has been funded through the 1999, 2000, and 
2001 Appropriations Acts.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 
Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $14,967,000, 
an increase of $14,967,000 above the amount available in fiscal 
year 2001 and the same as the budget request.

                        Rural Utilities Service

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) was established under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13, 
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of 
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water 
and waste programs of the former Rural Development 
Administration.
    The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in 
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering 
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs 
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially 
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of 
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides 
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas. 
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local 
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local 
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the 
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by 
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, 
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level.........................................  $3,110,321,000
2002 budget estimate....................................   3,110,292,000
Provided in the bill....................................   4,610,292,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level.....................................  +1,499,971,000
    2002 budget estimate................................  +1,500,000,000

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.), as amended provides the statutory authority for the 
electric and telecommunications programs.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee has included an increase of $500,000 in the 
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program 
administrative expenses transfer for additional administrative 
expenses due to the recommended loan levels in the electric 
municipal rate and FFB accounts, which account for an increase 
of $1,500,000,000 above the President's request.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2001 enacted  FY 2002 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................          $121,128          $121,107          $121,107
        Direct, Municipal rate............................           294,358           294,358           794,358
        Direct, FFB.......................................         1,600,000         1,600,000         2,600,000
        Direct, Treasury Rate.............................           500,000           500,000           500,000
        Guaranteed electric...............................           100,000           100,000           100,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................         2,615,486         2,615,465         4,115,465
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5%........................................            74,835            74,827            74,827
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................           300,000           300,000           300,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................           120,000           120,000           120,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................           494,835           494,827           494,827
                                                           =====================================================
            Total, Loan authorizations....................         3,110,321         3,110,292         4,610,292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                               Direct loan     Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                 subsidy           subsidy          expenses

2001 appropriation........................................       $40,275,000           $10,000       $34,640,000
2002 budget estimate......................................         5,645,000            80,000        35,604,000
Provided in the bill......................................         5,645,000            80,000        36,322,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation....................................       -34,630,000           +70,000        +1,682,000
    2002 budget estimate..................................  ................  ................          +718,000

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well 
as for administrative expenses.
    The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 2001 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by the Office of Management and Budget.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2001 enacted  FY 2002 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................           $12,064            $3,609            $3,609
        Direct, Municipal rate............................            20,458                 0                 0
        Direct, Treasury Rate.............................                 0                 0                 0
        Direct, FFB.......................................                 0                 0                 0
        Private Sector Guarantee..........................                10                80                80
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................            32,532             3,689             3,689
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5%........................................             7,753             1,736             1,736
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................                 0               300               300
        Direct, FFB.......................................                 0                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................             7,753             2,036             2,036
            Total, Loan subsidies.........................            40,285             5,725             5,725
                                                           =====================================================
    E & T expenses:
        Administrative expenses...........................            34,640            35,604            36,322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2001 loan level.........................................    $174,615,000
2002 budget estimate....................................               0
Provided in the bill....................................     174,615,000
Comparison:
    2001 loan level.....................................................
    2002 budget estimate................................    +174,615,000

    The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of Federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A 
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time 
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. 
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the 
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a 
loan level of $174,615,000, the same as the amount available in 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $174,615,000 above the 
budget request.
    The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal 
year 2001 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock 
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
    The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language 
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank 
Liquidating Account to pay for administrative expenses of the 
Rural Telephone Bank.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2001 appropriation..................        $2,584,000        $2,993,000
2002 budget estimate................                 0         3,082,000
Provided in the bill................         2,584,000         3,107,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..............  ................          +114,000
    2002 budget estimate............        +2,584,000           +25,000

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2002, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

                                                                   Loan level      Subsidy level      Grants

2001 appropriation............................................      $400,000,000               0     $26,941,000
2002 budget estimate..........................................       400,000,000               0      26,941,000
Provided in the bill..........................................       400,000,000               0      26,941,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation........................................  ................  ..............  ..............
    2002 budget estimates.....................................  ................  ..............  ..............

    The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was 
authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 
of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve 
the quality of phone services, provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $26,941,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee notes that contingent upon authorizing 
legislation, $1,996,000 will be transferred from distance 
learning and telemedicine grants to broadband telecommunication 
grants and $100,000,000 will be provided for broadband 
telecommunication loans.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program: The development of an assessment and implementation 
plan for expanded telemedicine services in rural Virginia 
through the George Mason University (VA) School of Nursing; 
development of an e-Health and Telemedicine program through the 
Valley Children's Hospital (CA); assistance to the Hampshire 
Education Collaborative to create a distance learning and 
professional development program throughout Franklin, 
Hampshire, and Hampden Counties, MA; assistance to the College 
of Southern Idaho to expand educational program capabilities to 
serve rural communities; assistance for distance learning and 
instructional equipment for the Petit Jean College (AR) 
Business and Technology Center; funds to develop a Material 
Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Arkansas 
at Little Rock; the development and delivery of educational 
materials for an aquaculture education and training program by 
the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution and Florida State 
University; assistance to Darton College (GA) for distance 
learning; and assistance for the Louisiana Online project to 
provide communications access to rural areas through Nicholls 
State University, Louisiana Tech University, and Southeastern 
Louisiana University.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

2001 appropriation......................................        $569,000
2002 budget estimate....................................         587,000
Provided in the bill....................................         592,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................         +23,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +5,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's food, nutrition and consumer activities. The 
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the 
Food and Nutrition Service.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services the Committee provides $592,000, an 
increase of $23,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year 
2001 and an increase of $5,000 above the budget request.
    Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).--The Committee is aware 
of the importance of ensuring that farmers participating in the 
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) and the Food Stamp 
Program (FSP) are able to participate in Electronic Benefit 
Transfer (EBT) systems. In addition, the Committee notes that 
USDA has studied and established the technical feasibility of 
wireless and other innovative EBT systems for farmers markets, 
rural route vendors, and other ``non-traditional'' vendors 
operating without access to standard telephone and electricity 
service.
    The Committee directs USDA to make available funds from the 
$6 million designated for the development of EBT systems to 
support state initiatives to implement wireless and other 
innovative EBT solutions for farmers markets, farmers, and 
other retail vendors participating in the WIC FMNP and the FSP 
to enable them to continue participating in these programs. As 
EBT systems replace paper coupons in more states, this will 
assure that participants in the WIC FMNP and FSP can continue 
to purchase nutritious locally grown agricultural products, 
especially fresh fruits and vegetables, and promote compliance 
with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
    Fresh Produce Purchases.--The Committee urges the Food and 
Nutrition Service to study the feasibility of an incentive 
pilot program to increase produce consumption under the Food 
Stamp Program and the Special Supplemental Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children. The pilot program should be based on 
participation rates and nutrition health status, with the goal 
of providing incentives to increase produce consumption. 
Increased produce consumption could enhance the control of 
adverse health conditions such as diabetes, high blood 
pressure, and osteoporosis.
    Meal Costs and Reimbursements.--The Committee is concerned 
about the effect of rising food and labor costs to school meal 
programs. The Committee understands that the reimbursement 
rates for school meals are adjusted annually according to the 
Consumer Price Index series for food away from home. Changes in 
the labor market may have caused wages for school food service 
personnel to increase at a rate faster than the index 
benchmark, and local or regional cost factors may affect the 
sufficiency of the reimbursement rates. The Committee 
understands that an analysis to address similar concerns was 
last conducted in 1993, and requests a report to the Committee 
by January 31, 2002, about Department plans to update this 
data.
    Milk Beverages.--The Committee encourages the Department to 
consider developing a pilot program in which milk beverage 
machines are placed in schools, and suggests that the state of 
Iowa be considered a candidate for such a program.
    School Lunch Salad Bars.--The Committee is concerned about 
school lunch nutrition, and in particular about increasing the 
consumption of fruits and vegetables among children. The 
Committee directs the Department to analyze data collected in 
the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, Part II to 
compare the amount of fruit and vegetables available to 
children in schools with salad/fruit bars versus those without 
salad/fruit bars. The Committee requests a report on this 
analysis by April 1, 2002.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an 
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in 
this country. Nutrition assistance programs are intended to 
provide access to a nutritionally adequate diet for families 
and persons with low-incomes, and encourage better eating 
patterns among the Nation's children. These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--Federal assistance is provided 
to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and 
breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades 
or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers 
and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program is aimed at making more 
effective use of the Nation's food supply and at improving 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most 
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used 
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also 
includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. The Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized 
a block grant for Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico which 
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a 
nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to 
the needs of its low-income households.
    The program includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. The program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity 
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health 
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants, 
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by 
providing food packages designed to supplement each 
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking. 
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health 
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other 
approved methods which a cooperating State health agency may 
select.
    The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides WIC or WIC-
eligible participants with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers' markets. The program is designed to accomplish 
two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers' 
markets by low-income households.
    The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP).--This program 
combines funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
(CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding 
women with low-incomes who reside in approved project areas. In 
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects 
directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.
    Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural 
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States 
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is 
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting 
administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use 
in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS 
administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all 
disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are 
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
    Food Program Administration.--This account represents most 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion (CNPP). The Center oversees improvements in and 
revisions to the nutrition guidance systems. CNPP is the focal 
point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and 
education policy to improve the health of all Americans.
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply 
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of 
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of 
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide 
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from 
general and continued hunger.

                        child nutrition programs

                                                               Direct         Transfer from      Total program
                                                           appropriation        section 32           level

2001 appropriation.....................................     $4,413,931,000     $5,127,579,000     $9,541,510,000
2002 budget estimate...................................      4,731,490,000      5,357,256,000     10,088,746,000
Provided in the bill...................................      4,748,038,000      5,340,708,000     10,088,746,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation.................................       +334,107,000       +213,129,000       +547,236,000
    2002 budget estimate...............................        +16,548,000        -16,548,000  .................

    Working through State agencies, the Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS) provides Federal assistance in cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the 
School Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program; the Summer 
Food Service Program; and Child and Adult Care Food Programs. 
In addition, the Special Milk Program provides funding for milk 
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit 
child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally 
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either 
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level. 
FNS provides cash subsidies to State administered programs and 
directly administers the program in the States which have 
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. Grants are 
also made for nutritional training and surveys and for State 
administrative expenses. Under current legislation, most of 
these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates 
established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts 
actually served by the States.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child 
nutrition provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorizes the 
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for 
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
    School Breakfast Program (SBP).--(1) Authorizes a pilot 
project to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to 
all students without regard to family income; and (2) requires 
participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection 
conducted by a State or local agency.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Authorizes 
payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in 
after-school programs. Permanently authorizes and provides 
funds for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless 
children and family day care homes in low-income areas. 
Beginning on July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program 
and the Homeless Summer Food Service Program transfer into 
CACFP.
    National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Significantly 
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in 
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in 
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a 
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
    Special Milk Program.--Through the Special Milk Program, 
funds are provided to State agencies to reimburse eligible 
participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk 
consumed. Under Public Law 97-35, participation in the Special 
Milk Program is restricted to schools and institutions that do 
not participate in another meal service program authorized by 
the Child Nutrition or School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 
1986, based on authority in Public Law 99-661, children in 
split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do 
not have access to the meal service programs operating in those 
schools may participate in the program.

                          committee provisions

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 
total of $10,088,746,000, an increase of $547,236,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as 
included in the budget request. Of the total amount provided, 
$4,748,038,000 is by direct appropriation and $5,340,708,000 is 
by transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:
    School lunch program................................  $5,759,232,000
    School breakfast program............................   1,579,752,000
    Child and adult care food program...................   1,878,179,000
    Summer food service program.........................     325,341,000
    Special milk program................................      15,940,000
    State administrative expenses.......................     129,929,000
    Commodity procurement...............................     372,536,000
    School meals initiative.............................       9,991,000
    Food safety education...............................       1,998,000
    Coordinated review effort...........................       4,507,000
    Computer support....................................       9,341,000
    School lunch program integrity......................       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total........................................... $10,088,746,000

    ``Buy American'' Report.--FNS is directed to provide a 
report to the Committee by December 31, 2001, on how the agency 
intends to enforce the Buy American provision of the Act that 
applies to purchases conducted by schools.
    Competitive Foods.--The Committee thanks the Department for 
its report on food sold in competition with the school food 
service programs. While the Report cites Congressional action 
that would strengthen the ability of the Department, the States 
and local schools to develop meaningful competitive foods 
policies, the Department at this time is not planning to seek 
such authority. While the Committee directs the Department to 
fully utilize the authority that it has to deal with the 
situation, the Committee strongly urges the Department to 
promptly review these recommendations for additional authority, 
and to request such authority from the authorizing committees 
of the House and Senate.
    Ohio School Food Service.--The Committee understands that 
the Department and State of Ohio authorities continue to work 
to develop effective proposals to develop alternative means for 
meeting the additional requirements under section 301(c) of the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act or section 5(c) of the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act. The Committee urges all parties to 
continue to work together to resolve this issue as 
expeditiously as possible to insure that children continue to 
be served nutritious and safe meals.
    Nutrition Education.--The nutritional status of our young 
people is a matter of public health. The Committee expects the 
Department to build upon work already done with the food 
pyramid, and other innovative national and local efforts. 
Nutrition information should be carefully reviewed so that a 
consistent and coordinated message is disseminated. Existing 
opportunities to convey nutrition messages, including 
newsletters, static displays in cafeterias, in-school and cable 
television productions should be used to the maximum extent 
possible. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 
report regarding the development and implementation of this 
effort by February 1, 2002.

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (WIC)

2001 appropriation......................................  $4,043,086,000
2002 budget estimate....................................   4,137,086,000
Provided in the bill....................................   4,137,086,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................     +94,000,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant, 
breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children 
up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1999, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through 
2003 and added several provisions to the program. The act 
requires that an individual seeking certification or 
recertification in the program must provide documentation of 
family income.
    Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.--The act permits State 
agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder 
offering the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State 
agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
the weighted average retail price for different brands of 
formula in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
    The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC 
participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers' markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and 
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.

                          committee provisions

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,137,086,000, an increase of $94,000,000 
above the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and the same 
amount as in the budget request.
    The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request estimates 
that WIC participation will average 7.25 million during fiscal 
2002 and the level of funds recommended supports that 
participation level. The WIC program is projected to carry over 
more than $100,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002.
    Electronic Benefit Transfer.--The Committee recommendation 
includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic 
benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of 
infrastructure funding at $10,000,000, which includes funding 
to develop EBT systems.
    Farmers' Markets.--The Committee provides new language 
regarding the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and activities 
relating to senior farmers' market nutrition. The Committee 
recommends that up to $25,000,000 be available for the Farmers' 
Market Nutrition Program and up to $15,000,000 for senior 
farmers' market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed 
to maintain current caseload levels.
    Encouraging Healthy Eating Habits.--Because more than half 
of WIC participants are children aged one through four, the 
Committee believes that encouraging these children to eat fresh 
fruits and vegetables through this program is crucial not only 
to their health, but also to establishing healthful, nutritious 
eating habits for life. This is consistent with both the goals 
of the WIC program and the new Dietary Guidelines.
    Participation Data.--The Committee is concerned that 
participation in the WIC program has been higher in recent 
months than had been anticipated. This higher participation 
rate raises concerns about the sufficiency of the appropriation 
request for FY 2002. WIC Program Directors restrict 
participation to the limits provided by this appropriation, and 
do not anticipate supplemental appropriations during the course 
of the fiscal year. The Committee will monitor and review the 
need for additional WIC funding in advance of conference on the 
FY 2002 bill.
    WIC Food Prescription.--The Committee notes that the WIC 
food prescription has changed little since 1974. In 1994, and 
again in 1998, USDA solicited comments in a draft policy on 
food substitutions to accommodate food preferences and ethnic 
cultural eating patterns. However, further action to respond to 
these concerns needs to be taken. The Committee urges the 
Department to move expeditiously in consultation with WIC 
public health nutritionists and directors, to develop for 
public comment a food prescription rule responding to the needs 
of culturally sensitive populations, and to provide a report to 
the Committee regarding the status of the matter prior to the 
FY 2003 hearings.

                           food stamp program

2001 appropriation...................................... $20,119,228,000
2002 budget estimate....................................  21,991,986,000
Provided in the bill....................................  21,991,986,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................  +1,872,758,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service 
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which 
are updated annually.
    Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for 
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or 
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal 
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained 
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the 
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 
By the end of fiscal year 2000, thirty-six systems (Alabama, 
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, 
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
Wyoming) and the District of Columbia were Statewide and five 
systems (California, Iowa, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin) 
were operating EBT in parts of the State. All other States are 
in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT systems.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.

                          administrative costs

    All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for 
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality 
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 
Federal Government and the States on a 50-50 basis.
    In addition, State agencies which reduce quality control 
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, State agencies 
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the 
program on Indian reservations. The Food Stamp Program is in 
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the 
District of Columbia.
    The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the 
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on 
States which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed 
target.
    Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a 
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives 
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition 
assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, 
funding for this block grant program was included under the 
food stamp appropriation account.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 
$21,991,986,000, an increase of $1,872,758,000 above the amount 
available in fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the budget 
request. The total amount includes $1,000,000,000 for a 
contingency reserve in fiscal year 2002; $1,335,550,000 for 
nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and $100,000,000 for the 
emergency food assistance program.
    The Committee recommendation includes up to $7,000,000 for 
the purchase of a sufficient amount of food stamp coupons to 
supply the remaining needs of recipients until electronic 
benefit transfer transition is complete, if the Secretary 
certifies that such purchases are necessary.

                      Commodity Assistance Program

2001 appropriation......................................    $139,991,000
2002 budget estimate....................................     139,991,000
Provided in the bill....................................     152,813,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................     +12,822,000
    2002 budget estimate................................     +12,822,000

    The Commodity Assistance Program provides funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative 
expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The CSFP provides 
supplemental food to infants and children up to age six, and to 
pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low-
incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
this program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized CSFP through 
fiscal year 2002. In addition, this law requires CCC to donate 
4 million pounds of nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of 
cheese to the program annually, subject to availability.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--TEFAP provides 
grant funds to State agencies to assist in the cost of storage 
and distribution of donated commodities for needy individuals.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $152,813,000 for 
the commodity assistance program, an increase of $12,822,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and $12,822,000 
above the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not 
include the rescission of $5,300,000 proposed for CSFP in the 
budget request.
    The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration 
of the emergency food assistance program, an increase of 
$5,000,000 over the amount available in fiscal year 2001 and 
$5,000,000 over the budget request. These funds may be used for 
administration purposes or for food costs at the discretion of 
the states.
    The Committee has included language providing $21,820,000 
for administrative expenses for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program.
    The Committee provides new language regarding activities 
relating to senior farmers' market nutrition. The Committee 
recommends that up to $15,000,000 be available for senior 
farmers' market nutrition activities, from any funds not needed 
to maintain current caseload levels.
    Addition of States to CSFP.--The Committee has provided 
funds to support the addition of five additional states to the 
CSFP.
    Food Distribution and Preservation.--The Committee believes 
that there is an abundant and affordable supply of surplus 
foods, but the lack of distribution and transportation capacity 
can limit the program's effectiveness. The Committee urges the 
Department to support programs that can expand food 
distribution, particularly for those organizations that serve 
large regions. In addition, the Committee is aware that 
perishable produce may be stabilized through flash freezing. 
The Department is encouraged to work with and support community 
service organizations to explore this option.

                        food donations programs

2001 appropriation......................................    $150,751,000
2002 budget estimate....................................     150,749,000
Provided in the bill....................................     150,749,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................          -2,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--The Nutrition Program 
for the Elderly (NPE) provides cash and commodities to States 
for distribution to local organizations that prepare meals 
served to elderly persons in congregate settings or delivered 
to their homes. The program promotes good health through 
nutrition assistance by reducing the isolation experienced by 
the elderly. This program is a supplement to the Department of 
Health and Human Services' (DHHS) funding for programs for the 
elderly with cash commodities on a per meal basis for each meal 
served to an elderly person.
    Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides for a 
directly funded food distribution program for low-income 
individuals in the nuclear-affected islands. This program 
attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in low-income 
households by providing nutritious agricultural commodities to 
eligible persons. It also provides funding for use in non-
presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' administrative 
costs in connection with disaster relief.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $150,749,000, a decrease of $2,000 from the 
amount available for fiscal year 2001, and the same amount as 
the budget request. Included in this amount is $149,668,000 for 
the nutrition program for the elderly.

                      food program administration

2001 appropriation......................................\1\ $116,550,000
2002 budget estimate.................................... \2\ 125,546,000
Provided in the bill....................................     126,656,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................     +10,106,000
    2002 budget estimate................................      +1,110,000

\1\ Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of 
$1,000,000 (P.L. 106-387) for studies and evaluations.
\2\ Does not reflect $1,996,000 transferred to the Congressional Hunger 
Center Foundation provided by P.L. 106-387.

    The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for 
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children (WIC); the Commodity Assistance Program, including the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, administrative expenses of 
The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program; the Food Donations Programs, including the 
Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Pacific Island Assistance 
and Disaster Feeding; the Food Stamp Program and the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance 
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the 
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program 
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support 
functions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided 
$126,656,000, an increase of $10,106,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $1,110,000 
above the budget request.
    The recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 for 
research, evaluation, and assessment activities and $1,800,000 
to improve FNS information technology.
    Dietary Guidelines.--The Committee encourages the Center 
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion to conduct ongoing research 
on modifications to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000 
to revise the food guide pyramid and related educational 
materials as needed.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                                                                                 Transfer from
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS

2001 appropriation............................................    $115,170,000    ($4,257,000)    ($119,427,000)
2002 budget estimate..........................................     121,563,000     (4,257,000)     (125,820,000)
Provided in the bill..........................................     122,631,000     (4,257,000)     (126,888,000)
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation........................................      +7,461,000  ..............      (+7,461,000)
    2002 budget estimate......................................      +1,068,000  ..............      (+1,068,000)

    The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, Supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The primary function of this organization is to help 
American agriculture in maintaining and expanding foreign 
markets for agriculture products vital to the economic well-
being of the nation. It maintains a worldwide agricultural 
intelligence and reporting service to assist the U.S. 
agricultural industry in its export operations through a 
continuous program of analyzing and reporting foreign 
agricultural production, markets, and policies. It attempts to 
develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products through 
administration of special export programs and through helping 
to secure international trade conditions that are favorable 
toward American products. FAS is also responsible for 
coordinating, planning, and directing the Department's programs 
in international development and technical cooperation in food 
and agriculture formerly carried out by the Office of 
International Cooperation and Development.

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $122,631,000 and transfers of 
$4,257,000, for a total program level of $126,888,000, an 
increase of $7,461,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $1,068,000 above the budget 
request.
    The Committee has included an additional $250,000 to 
continue efforts begun in fiscal year 2001 to increase FAS 
presence in Ukraine.
    Azores.--The Committee urges the Department to devote 
necessary resources to establish the Azores Collaborative 
Research and Education Group to assist the U.S. Government in 
meeting its treaty obligations to the government of Portugal.
    Currency fluctuations.--The Committee provides bill 
language permitting the Department to maintain up to $2,000,000 
solely for the purpose of offsetting international currency 
fluctuations.
    U.S. commodities.--The Committee continues to believe that 
commodity assistance, including monetization, is a vital tool 
to help alleviate the needs of recipients, and a prudent way to 
help move commodities that are in surplus and urgently needed. 
In any review of international commodity assistance, including 
section 416, the Committee expects that its prior directives on 
the matter be given full consideration. Further, while any 
change in Executive Administration will routinely delay 
decisions ordinarily made in the normal course of business, the 
Committee remains concerned that decisions with respect to 
commodity assistance are being made too late in the year to be 
of maximum value. The Committee directs the Department to 
develop a system for making these decisions no later than 
February 15 of each year, and to report to the Committee on the 
steps taken to implement this system.
    Rice.--The Committee includes language that the Secretary 
of Agriculture shall use currently available authorities to 
ensure that all forms of rice (rough, brown and milled) are 
fairly represented in all Department of Agriculture food aid, 
export market development, export promotion and other export 
related programs.
    Quality samples program.--The Committee expects that the 
Quality Samples Program (QSP) administered by the Foreign 
Agricultural Service will be continued to help develop new 
markets and expand existing markets for United States 
agricultural products. Funds made available through CCC to 
carry out activities under the QSP shall be no less than 
$2,500,000, the same level as in fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommends bill language which states that 
none of the funds appropriated in this account may be used to 
pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to disburse funds to 
any rice trade association under the market access program or 
the foreign market development program at any time when the 
applicable international activity agreement for such program is 
not in effect.

                             Public Law 480


                       program and grant accounts

                 public law 480 title I program account

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account are used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 2001 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes 
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies 
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local 
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation 
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. 
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period 
of up to 5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.
    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy 
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480 
programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2001 enacted  FY 2002 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
    Title I--Credit sales:
        Direct loans......................................    ($159,327,000)    ($139,399,000)    ($150,000,000)
        Ocean freight differential........................        20,277,000        20,277,000        20,277,000
        Loan subsidies....................................       113,935,000       113,935,000       122,600,000
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level.....................................     (835,159,000)     (835,159,000)     (835,159,000)
        Appropriation.....................................       835,159,000       835,159,000       835,159,000
    Title III--Commodity grants:
        Program level.....................................               (0)               (0)               (0)
        Appropriation.....................................                 0                 0                 0
    Salaries and expenses:
        General Sales Manager.............................         1,033,000         1,033,000         1,033,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        FSA...............................................           813,000           972,000           980,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................         1,846,000         2,005,000         2,013,000

          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level...............................     (835,159,000)     (835,159,000)     (835,159,000)
              Appropriation...............................       971,217,000       971,376,000       980,049,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural electrification.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of rural electrification as part of U.S. foreign 
assistance efforts. A direct linkage can be made between rural 
electrification and improved agriculture production, lower 
birth rates, microenterprise development, and better medical 
care. The committee is pleased with the track record and 
success of rural electrification programs based on the electric 
cooperative model and encourages the Department to consider 
proposals submitted by the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association and other organizations through the Food for 
Progress and related programs to advance rural electrification 
projects in developing nations.
    Funds interchange.--The Committee has included bill 
language providing that funds made available for the cost of 
title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential 
may be used interchangeably.

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                        administrative expenses

2001 appropriation....................................        $3,812,000
2002 budget estimate..................................         4,014,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,021,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation................................          +209,000
    2002 budget estimate..............................            +7,000

    Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided 
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to 
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program 
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. 
The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-term credit with 
repayment terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade 
Act of 1978, as amended, requires that not less than $5.5 
billion be made available annually from 1996 through 2002 for 
GSM-102 and GSM-103. The FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the 
Emerging Markets Export Credit Program.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan 
guarantees committed in 2001 and beyond, as well as for 
administrative expenses.
    Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is 
provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not 
by annual appropriation.

                          committee provisions

    For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $4,021,000, an increase of 
$209,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $7,000 above the budget request.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                                Prescription
                                                             Appropriation     drug  user fee    Total, FDA, S&E;

2001 appropriation......................................  \1\ \2\ $1,066,173      $149,273,000    $1,215,446,000
                                                                        ,000
2002 budget estimate....................................   \3\ 1,173,673,000       161,716,000     1,335,389,000
Provided in the bill....................................   \3\ 1,180,623,000       161,716,000     1,342,339,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................        +114,450,000       +12,443,000      +126,893,000
    2002 budget estimate................................          +6,950,000  ................        +6,950,000

\1\ Reflects $2,470,000 rescission.
\2\ This amount does not include $22,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.
\3\ This amount does not include $2,950,000 in contingent appropriations for drug reimportation activities.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal 
consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The 
agency's mission and sole objective is to protect and promote 
the public health through its science-based core activities of 
premarket review and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction 
over a wide variety of products that affect every person, every 
day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics 
including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological 
products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe 
and effective, as well as properly labeled.
    FDA works extensively with stakeholders--industry, 
consumers, and other interested parties--to: (1) set food and 
product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new 
drugs and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct 
and sponsor research studies to detect health hazards and 
violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency's 
base of scientific knowledge to allow for better regulatory 
decision-making; (4) inform business firms and consumers about 
FDA-related topics; (5) work with state and local agencies to 
develop programs that will supplement or complement those of 
FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods, drugs, medical 
devices and electronic products to ensure that they are safe, 
effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action when 
necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace and 
to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.
    FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to 
meet statutory requirements and its mission: research and 
development-fueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities; 
greater product complexity driven by breakthroughs in 
technology; growth in the recognized adverse effects associated 
with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats; 
continued cooperative activities needed in the international 
arena; and the increased volume and diversity of imports.

                          committee provisions

    For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee 
provides a total direct appropriation of $1,180,623,000 for 
salaries and expenses and makes available an additional 
$161,716,000 in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User 
Fee Act, for a total of $1,342,339,000. This is an increase of 
$126,893,000 above the total amount available in fiscal year 
2001 and an increase of $6,950,000 above the budget request.
    In addition, the Committee recommends $2,950,000 be 
available to the agency solely for activities relating to the 
Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 (Section 745 of 
P.L. 106-387), subject to the requirements of that Act.
    Bioengineered Foods.--On January 18, 2001, FDA issued a 
draft guidance on the voluntary labeling of foods indicating 
whether they have or have not been developed using 
bioengineering. The Committee directs that no final guidance 
may be issued without 15-day advance notice to the Committee.
    Breast Implants.--The Committee is concerned about a recent 
FDA study revealing alarmingly high rupture rates in silicone 
breast implants and the agency's decision to approve saline 
breast implants in spite of high complication and failure 
rates--particularly among mastectomy patients. The Committee 
advises the agency to carefully monitor breast implant 
manufacturers' patient brochures, informed consent documents, 
and package inserts to ensure they reflect accurate information 
about such implants, and to work with manufacturers to ensure 
women receive full and accurate information before enrolling in 
any study or undergoing surgery.
    Dietary Supplement Adverse Event Reports.--The July 1999 
General Accounting Office report (GGD-99-90) on dietary 
supplements found that the Adverse Event Report system used by 
the FDA needs to be improved. Furthermore, the GAO made 
specific recommendations to the FDA on what action should be 
taken to address this situation. More recently, in April 2001, 
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of 
Health and Human Services made further recommendations for 
enhancing the quality and capability of the FDA's AER system 
for dietary supplements. The Committee is concerned that the 
FDA has not taken proper steps to address the concerns outlined 
in the GAO and OIG reports. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the FDA to follow the recommendations made by these reports as 
a part of the agency's overall plan to consolidate and improve 
the AER system.
    Food Allergens.--Seven million Americans suffer from food 
allergies, and about 150 Americans die each year due to the 
ingestion of allergenic foods. Most children who have food 
allergies have their first exposure to allergens in their 
homes. A 2000 survey conducted jointly by the Food and Drug 
Administration, Minnesota, and Wisconsin found that one-quarter 
of the bakery products, candy, and ice cream sampled were 
contaminated with peanut or egg ingredients that were not 
declared on the product labels. The Committee is aware that FDA 
has recently issued guidance on the most common food allergies. 
However, the Committee is also aware of a petition filed in May 
2000 by the Attorneys General of nine states requesting that 
the FDA amend its regulations to require the disclosure of 
allergens on food packages. The Committee encourages FDA to 
promulgate regulations to prevent cross-contamination of foods 
by undeclared allergens and requests a report from the agency 
by December 31, 2001 on its plans to do so.
    Food Safety.--To enhance food safety, the Committee 
supports the expedited review of food additive petitions that 
are designed to decrease the risk of foodborne illness. FDA has 
implemented an expedited review process for such petitions. The 
Committee notes that despite this effort, unacceptable delays 
persist regarding actions that would permit the expanded use of 
pathogen-reducing technologies. The Committee directs FDA to 
explore additional activities that would permit the expanded 
use of pathogen-reducing technologies, particularly including 
more timely review, food additive petition process enhancements 
such as premarket consultations for petitions for new uses of 
irradiation, and developing irradiation labeling that is better 
understood by the general public.
    Generic Drug Application Review.--It is the view of the 
Committee that ensuring timely access to affordable generic 
medicines is an important part of efforts to address the rising 
cost of prescription drugs. Review times for applications of 
generic drugs continue to exceed statutory limits, thus 
depriving patients and health care providers of significant 
savings. The Committee provides an increase above the budget 
request of $1,500,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to hire 
reviewers and otherwise assist in accelerating generic drug 
reviews.
    Generic Drug Education.--It is the view of the Committee 
that ensuring timely access to affordable generic medicines is 
an important part of efforts to address the rising cost of 
prescription drugs. The Committee provides an increase of 
$250,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to further work begun 
this year to develop and implement an education program on the 
use and therapeutic equivalency of generic pharmaceuticals.
    Import Inspections.--The Committee remains concerned that 
the FDA physically inspects less than one percent of products 
imported into our country. The Committee is also concerned 
about the increasing and tremendous strain on inspection 
resources brought about by the flood of new imports coming into 
this country as a result of free trade agreements. The 
Committee encourages the FDA to consider the import program a 
priority in the agency's risk-based inspection system.
    Labeling of Irradiated Foods.--FDA is in the process of 
developing a proposed rule related to the current labeling 
requirements for foods that are treated with ionizing 
radiation. The Committee understands that FDA regulations 
currently permit labeling that explains why the food is being 
irradiated, as long as the labeling is truthful and not 
misleading. The Committee believes that any required disclosure 
should not be perceived as a warning or give rise to 
inappropriate consumer anxiety. The Committee believes the FDA 
should consider as part of its rulemaking process a proposal to 
include only those labeling alternatives that are easily 
understood by the general public.
    Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is 
concerned about the impact that delays in device application 
review have on Americans' health. The Committee has provided 
the full level of requested funding for device application 
review and expects that significant gains in performance will 
result. The Committee directs that FDA provide updates of its 
medical device review performance, as compared to statutory 
requirements for application decisions, with reports to the 
Committee in January and July 2002.
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The 
Committee is interested in the function and administration of 
the National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), a 
collaborative effort among the FDA, the Department of 
Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, and directs the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services to describe the administration of the 
program in a report to the Committee by March 1, 2002. The 
report to the Committee should contain a detailed breakout of 
all FDA funds allocated to NARMS in fiscal year 2001, including 
a list of FDA activities, and grants and funded interagency 
agreements to other agencies and academic institutions. In 
addition, include in the report any overhead cost factors used, 
and note any services or data provided by FDA to other federal 
agencies, states, or countries without charge to them.
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--Within the 
amounts provided for food safety, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for the National Center for Food Safety and 
Technology in Summit-Argo, Illinois, to continue collaborative 
research in food safety among government, academia, and private 
industry.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee is concerned that 
insufficient attention has been paid to gender-based research 
by the FDA. Since the Office of Women's Health was established 
in 1994, its budget and its functions have been stagnant in 
spite of greatly increased needs. Last year, GAO reported a 
serious disproportionate impact on women of drugs withdrawn 
from the market for safety reasons. To address this issue, the 
Committee directs that FDA develop an agency-wide database 
focused on women's health activities, and that FDA commence a 
capability assessment for each Center and the Office of the 
Commissioner to review currently available critical clinical 
trail databases, coordinate data collection and identify areas 
in which data gaps exist. The Committee directs FDA to provide 
an additional $700,000 to the Office of Women's Health for this 
effort, from within sums provided for all programs, and to 
provide the Committee with the capability assessment report and 
detailed plans for the database by January 31, 2002.
    Restrictions on Commercial Speech.--FDA is to report to the 
Committee by July 1, 2002, regarding actions it has taken or 
plans to take to address any significant and recent questions 
raised about whether an FDA rule or policy violates the First 
Amendment.
    Secondary Wholesale Pharmaceutical Industry.--The Committee 
supports the recent FDA action to delay the effective date for 
implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug 
Marketing Act until April 1, 2002. The Committee is concerned 
about the potential impact of the proposed revisions on the 
secondary wholesale pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, the 
Committee is concerned that the rule in its current form may 
disproportionately favor a few large distributors at the 
expense of consumers and genuine competition in the 
marketplace. The Committee urges the FDA to revise the rule to 
address the Committee's concerns.
    Shellfish Safety.--The Committee expects that FDA will 
continue its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Commission (ISSC) to promote educational and research 
activities related to shellfish safety in general, and Vibrio 
vulnificus in particular. The Committee directs the use of 
$250,000 for this effort from within sums provided for food 
safety. In addition, the Committee understands that FDA's 
Office of Seafood has a memorandum of understanding with ISSC 
to work on assuring the safety and quality of shellfish, 
including regulation development when needed. The Committee 
directs that FDA continue this work with the ISSC, and that FDA 
continue to devote not less than $200,000 to these efforts.
    Shellfish Safety Goals.--While the Committee supports the 
efforts by the Food and Drug Administration in reducing the 
rate of illness due to Vibrio vulnificus, it is concerned about 
the achievability of the illness rate reduction goals and the 
severity of consequences for failure in reaching those goals 
being proposed by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Conference (ISSC). The Committee encourages FDA and the ISSC to 
work with the state regulatory authorities and industry to 
ensure that the impact to the affected states is understood and 
mitigated as these reduction goals are developed, consistent 
with latest scientific information available. Furthermore, the 
Committee supports the continued emphasis on education of at-
risk individuals and their medical caretakers.
    White Oak, Maryland, Relocation.--The Committee recommends 
language, as requested, that extends the availability of 
$6,000,000 until September 30, 2003, for costs related to 
occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland.
    Recommendations by activity.--The Committee recommends that 
of the total amount provided: (1) $307,552,000 shall be for the 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) 
$349,397,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research and related field activities in the Office of 
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $155,375,000 shall be for the Center 
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $81,467,000 
shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related 
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) 
$179,521,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health and for related field activities in the 
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $37,082,000 shall be for the 
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR); (7) 
$31,798,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, other 
than the amounts paid to the General Services Administration; 
(8) $105,116,000 shall be for payments to the General Services 
Administration for rent and related costs; and (9) $95,031,000 
shall be for other activities, including the Office of the 
Commissioner, the Office of Senior Associate Commissioner, the 
Office of International and Constituent Relations, the Office 
of Policy, Planning, and Legislation, the Office of Management 
and Systems, and central services for these offices. Funds may 
be transferred from one specified activity to another with the 
prior approval of the Committee.

                        buildings and facilities

2001 appropriation......................................     $31,281,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      34,281,000
Provided in the bill....................................      34,281,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      +3,000,000
    2002 budget estimate................................................

    The Buildings and Facilities account was established for 
repair and improvement of existing facilities, as well as for 
construction of new facilities when needed.

                          committee provisions

    For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$34,281,000, an increase of $3,000,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2001 and the same amount as the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommends $8,281,000 for repairs and 
improvements to existing facilities, and $3,000,000 for 
continuing construction of phase III at the Arkansas Regional 
Laboratory. The Committee supports replacement of the Los 
Angeles laboratory, and provides an appropriation of 
$23,000,000 for the second and final phase of laboratory 
construction.

                          Independent Agencies


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

2001 appropriation......................................     $67,850,000
2002 budget estimate....................................      70,400,000
Provided in the bill....................................      70,700,000
Comparison:
    2001 appropriation..................................      +2,850,000
    2002 budget estimate................................        +300,000

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers 
the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of 
the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures 
and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring 
their integrity, and protecting participants and the public 
against manipulation, fraud, and abusive trade practices. The 
objective is to enable the markets to better serve their 
designated function in providing a price discovery mechanism 
and as a means of offsetting price risk. In properly serving 
these functions, the futures markets contribute toward better 
planning, more efficient distribution and consumption, and more 
economical marketing.

                          committee provisions

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $70,700,000, an increase of 
$2,850,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
an increase of $300,000 above the budget request.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

2001 limitation.......................................     ($36,719,000)
2002 budget estimate..................................      (36,700,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (36,700,000)
Comparison:
    2001 limitation...................................         (-19,000)
    2002 budget estimate..............................  ................

    The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by 
Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to 
the Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23, 
1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the 
direction of a Federal Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The 
Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-205) clarified the 
FCA's role as an arm's-length financial regulator, granting it 
the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal 
financial regulatory agencies. The Act also replaced the 
Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-
time Board members with the FCA Board, comprised of a Chairman 
and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time 
capacity. Not more than two members of the Board shall be 
members of the same political party.
    The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and 
examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System). 
The FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority 
of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2002 et seq.). The 
institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, 
production credit associations, Federal land credit 
associations, agricultural credit associations, and one 
Agricultural Credit Bank. The combined lending activities in 
the System institutions provided short- and long-term credit to 
the nation's farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of 
aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions 
are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of the 
System is funded through the sale of systemwide consolidated 
bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the 
institutions are fully liable for the payment of these 
securities. The operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the 
System institutions and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a 
special fund in the Treasury which is available for the use of 
the FCA.

                          Committee Provisions

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $36,700,000, a decrease 
of $19,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2001 and 
the same amount as the budget request.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill 
for fiscal year 2002 are fundamentally the same as those 
included in last year's appropriations bill.
    Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural 
America.
    Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
    Section 724: Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.
    Section 725: Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that 
assumes reductions from the previous year's budget due to user 
fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending 
reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
    Section 726: Language is included that provides that no 
funds shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, 
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in 
preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was 
adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
    Section 727: Language is included that provides that no 
funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural 
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and 
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
    Section 728: Language is included that provides $4,000,000 
for a hunger fellowship program.
    Section 729: Language is included that provides that, 
hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis 
from a credit card services provider under the Department of 
Agriculture's charge card programs may be deposited to and 
retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental 
Working Capital fund, and may be used to fund management 
initiatives of general benefit to the Department as determined 
by the Secretary.
    Section 730: Language is included that provides that any 
balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural 
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any 
recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be 
used to carry out Title II of such Act. Funds were last 
appropriated for Title III programming in FY 1999. However, 
there are Title III balances remaining of less than $500,000. 
This provision allows remaining Title III account balances to 
be used for Title II programming since no new Title III 
programming is anticipated. This provision will allow the use 
of remaining Title III balances for Title II even though 
Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the 
funds available for Title III may be used to carry out Title 
II.
    Section 731: Language is included that amends Section 
375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center 
revolving fund.
    Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to promulgate a 
proposed rule, or to otherwise change or modify the definition 
of ``animal'' in existing regulations pursuant to the Animal 
Welfare Act.
    Section 733: Language is included that provides that the 
City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, California, 
shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the 
Rural Community Advancement Program.
    Section 734: Language is included that provides that the 
City of Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered as meeting 
the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of the Housing 
Act of 1949.
    Section 735: Language is included that makes the City of 
St. Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans 
administered by the rural development mission areas of the 
Department of Agriculture.
    Section 736: Language is included that makes the City of 
Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs in the 
rural development mission areas of the Department of 
Agriculture.
    Section 737: Language is included stating that none of the 
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may 
be used to maintain, modify, or implement any assessment 
against agricultural producers as part of a commodity 
promotion, research, and consumer information order, known as a 
check-off program, that has not been approved by the affected 
producers in accordance with the statutory requirements 
applicable to the order.
    Section 738: Language is included that prohibits funds to 
close or relocate certain Food and Drug Administration offices 
in St. Louis, Missouri
    Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds to reduce staff levels at certain Food and Drug 
Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.
    Section 740: Language is included that provides emergency 
funds for market loss payments for apple producers.

                    Transfer of Unexpended Balances

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the 
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are 
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
by clause 1(b)(3) of rule X.
    1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental 
payments account based on changing space requirements.
    2. Hazardous Materials Management.--The bill allows the 
funds appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials 
management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as 
required.
    3. Departmental Administration.--The bill requires 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated 
to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to 
agencies.
    5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    6. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    7. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds 
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the 
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
    8. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by 
reference.
    9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm 
Service Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds 
may be transferred among lending programs.
    10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.--The bill 
provides that prior year balances from certain accounts shall 
be transferred to and merged with this account.
    11. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural 
Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Electrification 
and Telecommunications Loans program account; and Rural 
Telephone Bank program account.--The bill provides that 
administrative funds shall be transferred to the Rural 
Development Salaries and Expenses Account.
    12. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    13. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--The bill permits the use of funds 
for other programs under certain conditions.
    14. Commodity Assistance Program.--The bill permits the use 
of funds for another activity under certain conditions.
    15. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export 
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
    16. Public Law 480.--The bill provides that funds made 
available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I 
ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably.
    17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses 
associated with credit reform.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law. In most instances, these 
provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, 
often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of 
the responsible legislative committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--Language is included that allows for the 
reconfiguration and release of space back into the General 
Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space 
rental cost for space not needed for USDA programs. Language is 
included which allows the transfer of limited amounts to and 
from this account to cover new or increased costs until those 
costs can be included in subsequent budget requests to the 
Congress.
    3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    4. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes 
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out 
research related to the production, processing or marketing of 
tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included that allows 
the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 
Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is 
included that authorizes the Agricultural Research Service to 
charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special 
use authorization for the occupancy or use of land and 
facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be credited 
to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until 
expended.
    5. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out research related to the production, 
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
    6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services 
to non-APHIS personnel.
    7. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority 
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows for flexibility if export activities require 
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable 
factors occur.
    8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    10. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included by 
reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making 
dairy indemnity payments.
    11. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which 
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and 
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
    12. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    13. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation 
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill 
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not 
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by 
states and counties is authorized by basic law.
    14. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language, 
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 
(P.L. 98-8) and all bills since 1984, provides that funds may 
be used for rehabilitation of existing works.
    15. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during the current fiscal year be funded for a five-year 
period.
    16. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
program account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for loans to exceed seven percent.
    17. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations, 
except for $2,000,000 to be used in a study of integrity 
methods and practices in the National School Lunch Program.
    18. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to allow 
the use of funds for the farmers' market nutrition program, and 
for senior farmers' market activities.
    19. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to 
permit printing of food coupons under certain conditions.
    20. Commodity Assistance Program.--Language is included 
that allows a specific funding level for Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program administrative expenses and to allow the use of 
funds for senior farmers' market activities.
    21. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received 
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities 
involving international development and technical cooperation. 
Language is included that prohibits disbursement of funds to 
any rice trade association under the market access program or 
the foreign market development program at any time when the 
applicable international activity agreement for such program is 
not in effect. Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    22. Food and Drug Administration.--Language is included 
that extends the availability of $6,000,000 for costs related 
to occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, Maryland, until 
September 30, 2003. Language is included that provides that 
$2,950,000 is available solely for carrying out the Medicine 
Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000, subject to the requirements 
of that Act.
    23. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to limit the amount of fund for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    24. General Provisions.--
          Section 704: This provision permits the Secretary to 
        transfer funds made available by this Act, as well as 
        other available unobligated balances of the Department 
        of Agriculture, to the Working Capital fund for the 
        acquisition of plant and capital equipment, and 
        provides that no funds appropriated to an agency shall 
        be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
        approval of the agency administrator.
          Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is 
        again included which provides that certain 
        appropriations in this Act shall remain available until 
        expended where the programs or projects involved are 
        continuing in nature under the provisions of 
        authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation 
        does not specifically provide for extended 
        availability. This authority tends to result in savings 
        by preventing the wasteful practice often found in 
        government of rushing to commit funds at the end of the 
        fiscal year without due regard to the value of the 
        purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended 
        availability is also essential in view of the long lead 
        time frequently required to negotiate agreements or 
        contracts which normally extend over a period of more 
        than one year. Under these conditions such authority is 
        commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted 
        from basic law. These provisions have been carried 
        through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient 
        and effective program execution and to assure maximum 
        savings. They involve the following items: Animal and 
        Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund 
        to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the 
        integrated systems acquisition project, the boll weevil 
        program, up to 25 percent of the screwworm program, and 
        up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating 
        regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
        field automation and information management project; 
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
        Service, funds for competitive research grants, funds 
        for the Research, Education, and Economics Information 
        System (REEIS), and funds for the Native American 
        Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, 
        salaries and expenses to county committees; Foreign 
        Agricultural Service, middle-income country training 
        program and up to $2,000,000 for foreign currency 
        fluctuations.
          Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal 
        year 1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on 
        cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This 
        provision is necessary because many universities 
        attempted to apply the same overhead rates to 
        cooperative agreements as was being applied to grants 
        and contracts, without giving consideration to the 
        cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead 
        charges.
          Section 709: This provision, added in 1987, provides 
        that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
        restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This 
        provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a 
        lower cost than space leased by GSA.
          Section 710: This provision provides that none of the 
        funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect 
        costs charged against agricultural research, education, 
        or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State 
        Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of 
        19 percent of total direct costs, except for grants 
        available under the Small Business Innovation and 
        Development Act.
          Section 711: This provision clarifies that loan 
        levels provided in the Act are to be considered 
        estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit 
        Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated 
        subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of 
        loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest 
        rates change, the amount of loan authority will 
        fluctuate.
          Section 712: This provision allows funds made 
        available in the current fiscal year for the Rural 
        Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Telephone 
        Bank program account; the Rural Electrification and 
        Telecommunications Loans program account; the Rural 
        Housing Insurance Fund program account; and the Rural 
        Economic Development Loans program account to remain 
        available until expended. The Credit Reform Act 
        requires that the lifetime costs of loans be 
        appropriated. Current law requires that funds 
        unobligated after five years expire. The life of some 
        loans extends well beyond the five-year period and this 
        provision allows funds appropriated to remain available 
        until the loans are closed out.
          Section 713: This provision provides that marketing 
        services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the 
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
        Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
        Service; and the food safety activities of the Food 
        Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative 
        agreements.
          Section 714: This provision provides that the Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative 
        agreements.
          Section 715: Provides that not more than 5 percent of 
        the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be 
        retired in fiscal year 2002. The provision also 
        prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount 
        which has not been specifically authorized by law. The 
        provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated 
        funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating 
        account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank 
        that are in excess of current requirements.
          Section 716: Provides that of the funds made 
        available, not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to 
        cover expenses of activities related to all advisory 
        committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
        Department of Agriculture except for panels used to 
        comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to 
        evaluate competitively awarded grants.
          Section 717: Provides that none of the funds may be 
        used to carry out certain provisions of meat and 
        poultry inspection acts.
          Section 718: This provision prohibits any employee of 
        the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or 
        assigned to any other agency or office of the 
        Department for more than 30 days unless the 
        individual's employing agency or office is fully 
        reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
        salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
        assignment.
          Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department 
        of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to 
        any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or 
        responses to questions that are a result of information 
        requested for the appropriations hearing process.
          Section 720: Language is included that requires 
        approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
        concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
        Investment Review Board for acquisition of new 
        information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
        and that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office 
        of the Chief Information Officer without the prior 
        approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both 
        Houses of Congress.
          Section 721: Language is included that requires 
        certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in 
        Appropriations Acts.
          Section 722: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out programs under the Fund 
        for Rural America.
          Section 723: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future 
        Agriculture and Food Systems.
          Section 724: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to carry out the Conservation 
        Farm Option program.
          Section 725: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to 
        Congress that assumes reductions from the previous 
        year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the 
        submission also identifies spending reductions which 
        should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
          Section 726: Language is included that provides that 
        no funds shall be used to propose or issue rules, 
        regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of 
        implementation, or in preparation for implementation, 
        of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 
        1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
          Section 727: Language is included that provides that 
        no funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural 
        Development office unless or until cost effectiveness 
        and enhancement of program delivery have been 
        determined.
          Section 728: Language is included that provides 
        $4,000,000 for a hunger fellowship program.
          Section 729: Language is included that provides that, 
        hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-going 
        basis from a credit card services provider under the 
        Department of Agriculture's charge card programs may be 
        deposited to and retained without fiscal year 
        limitation in the Departmental Working Capital fund, 
        and may be used to fund management initiatives of 
        general benefit to the Department as determined by the 
        Secretary.
          Section 730: Language is included that provides that 
        any balances available to carry out Title III of the 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become 
        available, may be used to carry out Title II of such 
        Act. Funds were last appropriated for Title III 
        programming in FY 1999. However, there are Title III 
        balances remaining of less than $500,000. This 
        provision allows remaining Title III account balances 
        to be used for Title II programming since no new Title 
        III programming is anticipated. This provision will 
        allow the use of remaining Title III balances for Title 
        II even though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that 
        only 50 percent of the funds available for Title III 
        may be used to carry out Title II.
          Section 731: Language is included that amends Section 
        375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
        Development Act regarding the National Sheep Industry 
        Improvement Center revolving fund.
          Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the 
        use of funds to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
        to promulgate a proposed rule, or to otherwise change 
        or modify the definition of ``animal'' in existing 
        regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act.
          Section 733: Language is included that provides that 
        the City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, 
        California, shall be eligible for loans and grants 
        provided through the Rural Community Advancement 
        Program.
          Section 734: Language is included that provides that 
        the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, shall be considered 
        as meeting the requirements of a rural area in section 
        520 of the Housing Act of 1949.
          Section 735: Language is included that makes the City 
        of St. Joseph, Missouri, eligible for grants and loans 
        administered by the rural development mission areas of 
        the Department of Agriculture.
          Section 736: Language is included that makes the City 
        of Hollister, California, eligible for housing programs 
        in the rural development mission areas of the 
        Department of Agriculture.
          Section 737: Language is included stating that none 
        of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
        by this Act may be used to maintain, modify, or 
        implement any assessment against agricultural producers 
        as part of a commodity promotion, research, and 
        consumer information order, known as a check-off 
        program, that has not been approved by the affected 
        producers in accordance with the statutory requirements 
        applicable to the order.
          Section 738: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds to close or relocate certain Food and Drug 
        Administration offices in St. Louis, Missouri.
          Section 739: Language is included that prohibits the 
        use of funds to reduce staff levels at certain Food and 
        Drug Administration offices in Detroit, Michigan.
          Section 740: Language is included that provides 
        emergency funds for market loss payments for apple 
        producers.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

     SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT


SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Revolving Fund.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Funding.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Mandatory funds.--Out of any moneys in 
                the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 
                Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to the 
                Center not to exceed [$25,000,000] $26,000,000 
                to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                                                   in last year   Appropriations
    Program and last year of authorization             Authorization level              of         in this bill
                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following programs are not currently
 authorized by law:
USDA:
    Dairy Indemnity Program:
        FY 1995...............................  Such sums as necessary..........              0            $100
    Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger
     Fellowships:
        (\1\).................................  (\1\)...........................          (\1\)           4,000
The following programs are funded in this bill
 at levels that exceed those currently
 authorized by law:
USDA:
    Farm Service Agency:
        Direct Farm Loans:
            Ownership.........................  $85,000.........................             NA         128,000
            Operating.........................  500,000.........................             NA         600,000
        Guaranteed Farm Loans:
            Ownership.........................  750,000.........................             NA       1,000,000
    Cooperative State Research, Education, and
     Extension Service:
        Native American Institutions Endowment  4,600...........................             NA           7,100
         Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This program has never been authorized. It was initially funded in FY 2000 at $2 million.

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following information is 
submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the 
accompanying bill:
    The bill proposes rescission of $45,000,000 to eliminate 
the remaining unobligated balance in the Agricultural 
Conservation Program. This program was terminated at the 
beginning of 1997 in accordance with the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
    The bill proposes rescission of $3,616,000 of funds derived 
from interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 
2002 under the Rural Economic Development Loans Program 
Account, which is an annual technical adjustment contained in 
the budget estimates.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     302(b) allocation           This bill
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                       Full committee data                          Budget                  Budget
                                                                   authority    Outlays    authority    Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary...............................................     $15,519     $15,831     $15,669     $15,974
    Mandatory...................................................      43,112      33,847      43,112      33,847
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      58,631      49,678      58,781      49,821
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation.
  However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
  Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding in the reported bill for spending designated
  as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will
  provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new
  allocation will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill:

             [Five year projections, in millions of dollars]
Budget Authority......................................           $58,781
Outlays:
    2002..............................................            41,471
    2003..............................................             6,556
    2004..............................................               736
    2005..............................................               362
    2006 and beyond...................................               539


    The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and 
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, 
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan 
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available 
under existing law for fiscal year 2002 and beyond.

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
state and local governments is as follows:


                        [In millions of dollars]
New budget authority..................................           $19,560
Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom..........            16,134

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2002, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), the following information provides the definition of 
the term ``program, project, and activity'' for departments and 
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall 
include the most specific level of budget items identified in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2002, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the 
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall 
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2002 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in 
the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal 
year 2002 budget estimates, as amended, for such departments 
and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in 
addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual state, district, and county offices.
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: June 13, 2001.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2002.
    Motion by: Mr. Cunningham.
    Description of motion: To strike bill language providing 
for a $500,000 study on the effects of irradiated food, to 
strike report language asking the FDA to consider only labeling 
that is easily understood by the public, and to insert report 
language that any irradiated food labeling requirement should 
not be perceived as a warning.
    Results: Adopted 31 yeas to 25 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Boyd
Mr. Bonilla                         Mr. Clyburn
Mr. Cramer                          Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Dicks
Mr. Doolittle                       Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Farr
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Goode
Ms. Granger                         Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Hobson                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Istook                          Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Knollenberg                     Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. LaHood                          Mrs. Meek
Mr. Latham                          Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Obey
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Olver
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Pastor
Mrs. Northup                        Mr. Price
Mr. Peterson                        Mr. Rothman
Mr. Regula                          Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Sabo
Mr. Skeen                           Mr. Serrano
Mr. Sununu                          Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Taylor                          Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Tiahrt                          Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2

    Date: June 13, 2001.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2002.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To provide $500,000,000 in 
contingent emergency appropriations for the establishment of a 
biofuels program.
    Results: Rejected 18 yeas to 31 nays.

        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr                            Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Doolittle
Ms. Kaptur                          Mrs. Emerson
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Goode
Mr. Mollohan                        Ms. Granger
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Hobson
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Kingston
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Price                           Mr. LaHood
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Latham
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Miller
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mrs. Northup
                                    Mr. Peterson
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Sherwood
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall No. 3

    Date: June 13, 2001.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2002.
    Motion by: Ms. DeLauro.
    Description of motion: To provide $50,000,000 in contingent 
emergency appropriations for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service and $163,000,000 in contingent emergency appropriations 
for the Food and Drug Administration for food safety 
activities.
    Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 29 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Doolittle
Ms. DeLauro                         Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr                            Ms. Granger
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. LaHood
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Latham
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey                            Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Price                           Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Sherwood
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Skeen
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sununu
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall No. 4

    Date: June 13, 2001.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2002.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To require continuation of the 
Global Food for Education Initiative at the fiscal year 2001 
level, with directed scorekeeping.
    Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 32 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. DooLittle
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Granger
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. LaHood
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Miller
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Tiahrt                          Mr. Skeen
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Sununu
Mr. Wicker                          Mr. Sweeney
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall No. 5

    Date: June 13, 2001.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2002.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of motion: To provide contingent emergency 
appropriations of $150,000,000 in Commodity Credit Corporation 
funds for market loss assistance for apple producers.
    Results: Adopted 34 yeas to 24 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Doolittle
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Istook
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Kingston
Mr. Goode                           Mr. LaHood
Ms. Granger                         Mr. Latham
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Lewis
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Jackson                         Mrs. Northup
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Rogers
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Skeen
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mr. Sununu
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Taylor
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Vitter
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Wamp
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Wicker
Mr. Peterson                        Mr. Young
Mr. Price
Mr. Rothman
Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Sabo
Mr. Serrano
Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wolf



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                overview

    We believe that the Committee has produced a reasonable 
bill, given the resources available to it.
    We do have serious concerns about four important issues--
food safety, the Global Food for Education Initiative, the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
Children (WIC) program and biofuels.
    We regret that the Committee bill does not adequately 
address what we believe are important needs in each of these 
areas. We will continue to press for the resources needed in 
these areas as this bill moves forward.

                         improving food safety

    In the area of food safety, some of the most commonly cited 
statistics are that 76 million Americans become ill, 325,000 
require hospitalization and 5,000 die every year from foodborne 
illnesses. These statistics come from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
    These statistics are disturbing. Clearly, our food safety 
system is in need of improvement.
    The FDA acknowledged that there are shortfalls in our 
current food inspection process, in testimony before the 
Subcommittee this year.
    The agency said, ``The inspectional coverage of food 
manufacturers, particularly high risk manufacturers, has been 
inadequate over the past several years.''
    With respect to imported foods, the agency said:

          Inspections of imported products are also of great 
        concern. FDA physically inspects less than one percent 
        of all imported products brought into the U.S. that are 
        under FDA's jurisdiction. The vast majority of active 
        pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured overseas are 
        imported to the U.S. The importation of food from other 
        countries has been growing rapidly over the past 
        decade, and continues to grow. In FY 2002, we expect to 
        receive 7 million food import entries. FDA must improve 
        foreign inspection and physical port inspection 
        coverage and oversight of foreign producers to be able 
        to maintain the safety of products on that market that 
        we believe Americans expect and demand.

    The agency that is charged with ensuring the safety of so 
much of the food we eat clearly believes more must be done.
    During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative 
Rosa DeLauro offered an amendment that would have begun the 
process of substantially enhancing food safety inspection in 
this country.
    The amendment would have provided $213 million in fiscal 
year 2002 to FDA and USDA for food safety. The funding would 
have put us on a path to achieving what the FDA identified 
before the Subcommittee this year as an ``optimum'' domestic 
food facility inspection schedule. In addition, it would have 
begun to move us toward a level of 10% inspection by FDA of 
imported foods. Finally, it included $50 million for the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture 
so that it could fund actions it deemed necessary to improve 
FSIS's inspection of the meat and poultry products over which 
it has responsibility.
    This important amendment was unfortunately defeated by a 
vote of 23 to 29.
    The defeat of this amendment was regrettable. But we will 
continue to work this year to give FDA and USDA the resources 
necessary to make significant improvements in the safety of the 
foods we eat every day.

                  global food for education initiative

    In 2000, the United States announced an important new 
international food aid initiative for children. Called the 
``Global Food for Education Initiative,'' the program is 
currently underway in this fiscal year, 2001.
    Two of its leading proponents are Ambassador George 
McGovern and former Senator Bob Dole.
    The program is designed to provide a nutritious meal to 
children--both to feed them and to encourage them to remain in 
school. Working through the United Nations World Food Program, 
private voluntary organizations and foreign governments, the 
program aims to feed about 9 million children in 38 countries.
    But the Secretary of Agriculture has not decided whether to 
continue this program in fiscal year 2002, leaving program 
participants and beneficiaries uncertain about its future.
    Bipartisan bills have recently been introduced in both the 
House and Senate to continue the program.
    While those bills are under consideration, it is important 
that the future of the program be assured.
    For this reason, Representative Marcy Kaptur offered an 
amendment during Committee markup to direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to continue the GFEI program in fiscal year 2002, 
at the level it was implemented in fiscal year 2001.
    Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 26 
to 32.
    We urge the Department to make the decision now to continue 
to operate this program in fiscal year 2002. But in the 
meantime, we will work to secure agreement in this bill on its 
continuation.

                            The WIC Program

    The WIC program provides a very important safety net for 
at-risk pregnant, breastfeeding and post-partum women, infants 
and young children. We are concerned that the funding provided 
in this bill may not be sufficient.
    While the bill fully funds the Administration's request for 
the WIC program, the request itself may be inadequate to meet 
the need in fiscal year 2002.
    The budget indicates that the Administration's funding 
request funds the fiscal year 2001 participation rate for 
fiscal year 2002.
    But because the Administration's budget itself projects an 
increase in the unemployment rate in fiscal year 2002, merely 
maintaining the fiscal year 2001 level for WIC may not be 
enough.
    In addition, there are concerns that technical assumptions 
about funds that may be available to the program in fiscal year 
2002 may be overly optimistic. These overly optimistic 
projections also put at risk the Department's ability to 
continue the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program for mothers and 
children, as well as the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program.
    During markup, the Committee adopted report language 
offered by Representative Rosa DeLauro that expressed concern 
about the level of WIC funding and indicated that ``the 
Committee will monitor and review the need for additional WIC 
funding in advance of conference on the FY 2002 bill.''
    We are pleased that the Committee adopted this language. We 
will work to ensure that an adequate level of funding is 
provided in the final FY 2002 bill for this essential program.

                                Biofuels

    There is no doubt that one of the most significant problems 
facing the United States is energy independence. The Department 
of Agriculture has conducted various successful research 
programs over the years that demonstrate that ethanol, 
biodiesel, and other biomass fuels can be effective 
alternatives for both consumers of fuels, as well as an 
additional source of revenue for producers.
    More than $3 billion has been invested in 55 ethanol 
production facilities operating in 20 different states across 
the country.
    The ethanol industry is responsible for more than 40,000 
direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in 
increased household income annually, and more than $12.6 
billion over the next five years.
    The ethanol industry directly and indirectly adds more than 
$6 billion to the American economy each year. The demand for 
grain created by ethanol production increases net farm income 
more than $12 billion annually.
    Increases in ethanol production offer enormous potential 
for economic growth in small rural communities. USDA has 
estimated that a 100 million gallon ethanol plant could create 
2,250 local jobs.
    Noting that not one of the more than 100 recommendations in 
the President's National Energy Policy explicitly directs 
activity by the Secretary of Agriculture, apart from the long 
history of the Department's involvement in these activities, 
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur offered an amendment that would 
provide $500 million to the Secretary, under existing 
authorities, for research, development, technical, and 
financial assistance programs for biofuels, including farmer-
held fuel stock reserves. Unfortunately, this amendment was 
defeated 18-31.
    As we look for a comprehensive solution to our energy 
needs, the role of biofuels cannot be ignored. We urge the 
Department to aggressively move forward using all authorities 
at its disposal to maximize its support for biofuels.

                                   David Obey.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.