    [House Report 107-116]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

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

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

                                    _______

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

                                    _______

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

                                  R E P O R T

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                            [To accompany H.R. 2330]

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

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

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

                                  Introduction

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

                            constitutional authority

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

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

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

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

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

                         TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                     Production, Processing, and Marketing

                            Office of the Secretary

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                              Executive Operations

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

                         Office of the Chief Economist

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                           National Appeals Division

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                     Office of Budget and Program Analysis

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

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

                              COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                    Office of the Chief Information Officer

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                          Common Computing Environment

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                     Office of the Chief Financial Officer

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

            Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

            Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

                            [In thousands of dollars]

                                        2001     2002 budget     Committee
                                      estimate      request   recommendation

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

                         Hazardous Materials Management

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                          Departmental Administration

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                  Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

         Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                            Office of Communications

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                          Office of Inspector General

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                         Office of the General Counsel

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                           Economic Research Service

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                    National Agricultural Statistics Service

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                         Agricultural Research Service

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                            Buildings and Facilities

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                       Research and Education Activities

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

                  Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                              Extension Activities

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

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

                             integrated activities

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

      Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                   Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                             Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                      Total, APHIS
                                                                 Appropriations     User Fees \1\    Appropriations

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

        The following table reflects the amounts provided by the
    Committee:

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

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

                            Buildings and Facilities

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

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

                         Agricultural Marketing Service

                               Marketing Services

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                     Limitation on Administrative Expenses

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

              Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                                  (Section 32)

                         Marketing Agreement and Orders

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                       Payments to States and Possessions

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

            Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                             Salaries and Expenses

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

            Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                 Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                       Food Safety and Inspection Service

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                            FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

        Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
                                    Services

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                              Farm Service Agency

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

                             Salaries and Expenses

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                             state mediation grants

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                            Dairy Indemnity Program

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

               agricultural credit insurance fund program account

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

                             estimated loan levels

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                          agriculture credit programs

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

           estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                     Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                       subsidy          subsidy          expenses

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

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

                             Risk Management Agency

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                                  Corporations

                    Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

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

    \1\ Current indefinite appropriation.

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                       Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

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

                     Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses

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

    \1\ Current indefinite appropriation.

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

           Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                        TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

      Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                     Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                            Conservation Operations

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                         watershed surveys and planning

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                   watershed and flood prevention operations

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                     resource conservation and development

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                          forestry incentives program

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                       agricultural conservation program

                             (rescission of funds)

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

                     TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

              Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                    rural development salaries and expenses

                                                                                                        Committee
                                                                FY 2001 estimate  FY 2002 estimate     provisions

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                      rural community advancement program

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

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

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

                             Rural Housing Service

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

                  RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                        ESTIMATED LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

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

       estimated loan subsidy, grants, and administrative expenses levels

                                                        Direct loan     Guaranteed                    Administrative
                                                          subsidy      loan  subsidy      Grants          expenses

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

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

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

                           rental assistance program

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                      mutual and self-help housing grants

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

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

                              COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                           farm labor program account

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                        rural housing assistance grants

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

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

                              COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                       Rural Business-Cooperative Service

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

                              committee provisions

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

                  rural development loan fund program account

                              estimated loan level

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

           estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                             Direct loan     Administrative
                                               subsidy          expenses

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

                rural economic development loans program account

                              estimated loan level

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                             estimated loan subsidy

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

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

                      rural cooperative development grants

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

           RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

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

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

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

                              COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                            Rural Utilities Service

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

       RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                              ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

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

           estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                   Direct loan     Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                     subsidy           subsidy          expenses

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

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

           ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

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

                      RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                              ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

           ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                             Direct loan     Administrative
                                               subsidy          expenses

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

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

                   DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

                                                                       Loan level      Subsidy level      Grants

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                        TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                           Food and Nutrition Service

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

                            child nutrition programs

                                                                   Direct         Transfer from      Total program
                                                               appropriation        section 32           level

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                               food stamp program

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

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

                              administrative costs

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                          Commodity Assistance Program

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                            food donations programs

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                          food program administration

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

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                          Foreign Agricultural Service

                                                                                     Transfer from
                                                                     Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                                 Public Law 480

                           program and grant accounts

                     public law 480 title I program account

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

                              committee provisions

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

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

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

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

                        CCC Export Loans Program Account

                            administrative expenses

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

          TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                          Food and Drug Administration

                             salaries and expenses

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

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

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                            buildings and facilities

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                              Independent Agencies

                      Commodity Futures Trading Commission

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

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

                              committee provisions

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

                           Farm Credit Administration

                     limitation on administrative expenses

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

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

                              Committee Provisions

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

                         TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                        Transfer of Unexpended Balances

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

                   Changes in the Application of Existing Law

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

             Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

             Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

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

         SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

    SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.

        (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

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

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

                                  Rescissions

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

                       Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

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

                          Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

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

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

                   Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

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

                         Program, Project, and Activity

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

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

                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1

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

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

                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2

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

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

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

                                 rollcall No. 3

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

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

                                 rollcall No. 4

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

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

                                 rollcall No. 5

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

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                    overview

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

                             improving food safety

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

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

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

                      global food for education initiative

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

                                The WIC Program

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

                                    Biofuels

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

                                       David Obey.
                                       Marcy Kaptur.