[Senate Report 107-223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 520
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-223

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



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003
                                _______
                                

                 July 25, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany S. 2801]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for 
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2801) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2003

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $74,330,233,000
Amount of 2002 appropriations acts to date..............  73,355,443,000
Amount of estimates, 2003...............................  73,530,625,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Over the appropriations provided in 2002............     974,790,000
    Over the estimates for 2003.........................     799,608,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          Summary of the Bill

                                                                   Page
Overview and summary of the bill.................................     5
Government Performance and Results Act...........................     5

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary..........................................     8
Executive operations.............................................    10
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    11
Common computing environment.....................................    12
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................    12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil rights...............    13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    14
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.........    14
Hazardous waste management.......................................    15
Departmental administration......................................    16
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    17
Office of Communications.........................................    18
Office of Inspector General......................................    18
Office of the General Counsel....................................    19
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
  Economics......................................................    19
Economic Research Service........................................    20
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    21
Agricultural Research Service....................................    22
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....    48
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
  Programs.......................................................    60
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......................    61
Agricultural Marketing Service...................................    71
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    75
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    76
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    77
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
  Services.......................................................    79
Farm Service Agency..............................................    80
Risk Management Agency...........................................    86

                              Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund..........................    87
Commodity Credit Corporation fund................................    89

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
  Environment....................................................    92
Natural Resources Conservation Service...........................    92

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
  Development....................................................   105
Rural Community Advancement Program..............................   106
Rural Housing Service............................................   112
Rural Business-Cooperative Service...............................   118
Rural Utilities Service..........................................   121

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 
  Services.......................................................   125
Food and Nutrition Service.......................................   126

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service.....................................   143

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Food and Drug Administration.....................................   151

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   160
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   162

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   164
Program, project, and activity...................................   165
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   166
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   166
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   167
Budgetary impact of bill.........................................   167

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

    The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six 
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, 
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report. 
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects 
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate 
item headings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2003 Committee
                                         2002 \1\        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....        $29,227,688        $25,593,038
Title II: Conservation programs...            962,139          1,044,212
Title III: Rural economic and               2,581,924          2,745,988
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..         37,894,627         41,927,865
Title V: Foreign assistance and             1,124,518          1,464,385
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........          1,456,651          1,498,249
Title VII: General provisions.....            107,896             56,496
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                73,355,443,000     74,330,233,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations.


                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural economic 
and community development activities, and telecommunications 
and electrification assistance; and various export and 
international activities of the USDA.
    The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA].
    Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, 
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
agricultural and rural development programs and on other 
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the 
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2003.
    All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to 
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on 
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the 
report.
    The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and 
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects 
the Department only to approve those applications judged 
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results 
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop 
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance 
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the 
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity 
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program 
activities and establish performance measures for use in 
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining 
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the 
difference they make in citizens' lives.
    The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends 
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee 
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending 
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and 
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is 
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements 
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this 
Committee.

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

    The President's Budget includes a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requests an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    The authorizing committee has not acted on this 
legislation, therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
reduced the dollar amounts of the President's request shown in 
the ``Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and 
Amounts Recommended in the Bill,'' as well as in other tables 
in this report, to exclude the accrual funding proposal.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the 
Congress.
    The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House 
Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice, 
which has always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress 
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The 
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.

                               Pay Costs

    Unless indicated otherwise, all references in this 
legislation to ``pay parity'' refer to pay parity between 
Federal employees, who received a 2.6 percent increase in the 
budget request, and military personnel, who received a 4.1 
percent increase in the budget request. The Committee provides 
in this Act a 4.1 percent pay increase for Federal employees.

               Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA)

    The President's budget includes a legislative proposal to 
allow the Department of Labor (DOL) to charge agencies for 
administrative costs related to FECA benefits paid to 
employees. Currently, although DOL bills agencies for FECA 
benefits; it does not bill agencies for the costs of 
administering these benefits.
    The President's budget includes the administrative costs in 
each agency's budget, as opposed to the DOL budget, where the 
funds have previously been appropriated. The Committee's 
recommendation, however, assumes that this proposal will not be 
enacted into law, and excludes these administrative costs.

                         Rental Payments to GSA

    In recent year, funding for General Services Administration 
(GSA) rental payments have been appropriated to the USDA 
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments 
account. The budget request proposes decentralizing these 
expenses and appropriating the proper amounts to each separate 
agency and activity. The Committee does not support this 
request, and provides funding for rental payments in the same 
account as previous years. The Committee expects each agency to 
properly manage its rental space needs to ensure the most 
efficient use of limited Federal resources.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................      $2,992,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\...............................      36,667,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,444,000

\1\ Excludes $80,919,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $74,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $3,444,000. This amount is $452,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $33,223,000 less than the 
budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $107,000 for pay parity 
costs and benefits. This amount does not include $28,250,000 as 
requested in the President's budget for security improvements, 
as these funds were provided in the fiscal year 2002 emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. This amount also does not 
include an increase of $5,000,000 for Service Center Agencies 
streamlining, or $5,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
proposed in the budget.
    Environmentally preferable products.--The Secretary shall 
work with the General Services Administration, the Department 
of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other 
appropriate agencies to maximize the purchases of 
environmentally preferable products, as defined by Executive 
Order 13101 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste 
Prevention. Such products are not only useful in improving the 
environment, but they can, when the product contains a 
substantial amount of agri-based content, also open 
considerable markets for farmers.
    The Department should actively participate in joint task 
forces and other multiagency entities in this area. It should 
actively work to properly define standards for agri-based 
content of products and work towards the development of such 
environmentally preferable products.
    Drought mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack 
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought 
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and 
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Current 
conditions in the Pacific Northwest, as one example, have 
resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling to within 
only 20 to 30 percent of normal supply. The report of the 
National Drought Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 
21st Century'', recommends that Congress pass a National 
Drought Preparedness Act. Such an act would establish a 
Federal/non-Federal partnership through a National Drought 
Council responsible for implementing a national drought policy. 
The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out the 
recommendations of the National Drought Commission and 
coordinate USDA mission areas to provide a response to drought-
stricken areas in as prompt and meaningful a way as possible.
    Administrative convergence.--The Secretary is expected to 
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or 
reduction of any administrative or information technology 
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any 
other agency of the Department.
    Lower Mississippi River Delta.--The Committee remains 
supportive of actions by the Department to improve economic and 
social conditions in the Lower Mississippi River Delta. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to give consideration to 
utilizing locations in the Delta for Department-wide functions, 
such as training sessions, for USDA personnel and other 
activities, where practicable, in order to help bring added 
economic stimulus to the region. The Committee is aware that 
property in Helena, Arkansas, may be available through a gift 
to the Department for such purposes. The Committee requests the 
Secretary to investigate this opportunity and to provide a 
report to the Committee on this subject by March 1, 2003.
    Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Secretary, 
after consultation with the Administrator, the Administrator of 
General Services, and Secretary of Commerce (acting through the 
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology) 
shall prepare and from time to time revise guidelines for the 
use of procuring agencies in complying with the requirements of 
Public Law 107-171, section 9002. The Secretary shall also work 
to carry out all other requirements of section 9002.
    The Committee is concerned that the Secretary may restrict 
access to funding under the Ground and Surface Water 
Conservation program authorized in the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act to producers in one region of the country. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to provide access to funds 
under this program to all eligible producers and in determining 
allocations for fiscal year 2003 to give priority to eligible 
producers who did not benefit from fiscal year 2002 funds.

                          Executive Operations

    Executive operations were established as a result of the 
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for 
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services. 
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of 
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the 
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

                            CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,704,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      12,117,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,085,000

\1\ Excludes $391,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
recommends $12,085,000. This amount is $4,381,000 more than the 
2002 appropriation and $32,000 less than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $239,000 for pay parity 
costs and benefits. This amount does not include an increase of 
$101,000 for rental payments to GSA, as requested in the 
budget.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $12,869,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      14,334,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,954,000

\1\ Excludes $928,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends 
$13,954,000. This amount is $1,085,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and $380,000 less than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $585,000 for pay parity 
costs. This amount does not include an increase of $575,000 for 
rental payments to GSA, as requested in the budget.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,041,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................       7,358,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,310,000

\1\ Excludes $530,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides 
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary 
functions including development, presentation, and execution of 
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for 
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and 
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of 
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy 
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking 
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and 
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to 
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested 
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of 
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative 
programs and reports. This amount includes on increase of 
$269,000 for pay parity costs and benefits.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee recommends $7,310,000. This amount is $269,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $48,000 less than the budget 
request. This amount includes an increase of $269,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $10,029,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      31,277,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,370,000

\1\ Excludes $455,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established 
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer 
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy 
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the 
Department's information management and information technology 
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery. The 
Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements 
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical 
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources 
management projects, and implements standards to promote 
information exchange and technical interoperability. In 
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is 
responsible for certain activities financed under the 
Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office 
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing 
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National 
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, 
CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational services are 
also provided to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of 
Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and 
Executive Operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $31,370,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $21,341,000 more than 
the 2002 appropriation and $93,000 more than the budget 
request. This amount includes an increase of $315,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $2,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.

                      Common Computing Environment

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $59,369,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     133,155,000
Committee recommendation................................     133,155,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $133,155,000 for the Common 
Computing Environment. This is $73,786,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and the same as the budget request.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $5,384,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................       7,918,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,940,000

\1\ Excludes $481,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief 
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction 
and oversight of the Department's financial management 
operations and systems. The Office is also responsible for the 
management and operation of the National Finance Center. In 
addition, the Office provides budget, accounting, and fiscal 
services to the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff 
offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of 
Communications, and executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee recommends $7,940,000. This amount is $2,556,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $22,000 more than the budget 
request. This amount includes an increase of $210,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    The Committee recognizes the broad range of activities 
carried out by the National Finance Center (NFC), and the 
importance of these activities to both the Department of 
Agriculture and the other customers it serves. In responding to 
a directive of this Committee, the Secretary provided a report 
on the Department's plans for continuing operation of the NFC. 
While that report included general objectives of enhanced 
performance and improved effectiveness, few details were 
included in regard to immediate plans regarding the NFC 
location or infrastructure. The report concluded that while the 
Department had every intention of continuing those NFC 
activities relating to its controllership function, 
intermediate or long-term plans focusing on other issues would 
be best addressed within the context of integrated Federal 
initiatives rather than by USDA unilaterally. The Committee is 
aware that the physical plant in which the NFC is located needs 
improvements, and certain cyber-security issues, such as 
``mirroring'' backup systems, require immediate attention. The 
Committee expects the Chief Financial Officer to complete a 
review of NFC needs in regard to physical location and cyber 
security and to include in future budget requests those items 
necessary and proper to maintain the NFC in a safe and secure 
setting.

                          Working Capital Fund

Appropriations, 2002....................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     $21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,000,000

    The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944 
Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services 
in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and 
other visual information services, art and graphics, video 
services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized 
automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and 
related services, voucher payments services, and ADP systems. 
The National Finance Center's expenses are also funded through 
this fund.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee provides $21,000,000 to the Working Capital 
Fund, as requested in the budget, from which the Secretary may 
draw resources, as necessary, to address immediate needs of the 
NFC not otherwise provided for in this Act.
    Previous funding for Working Capital Fund activities was 
provided through transfers from other agencies as reimbursement 
for services performed. The National Finance Center is managed 
through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget Estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................        $780,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
the Committee recommends $780,000. This amount is $780,000 more 
than the 2002 level and the budget request. The Committee 
believes that additional policy level oversight provided 
through this new Assistant Secretary will be beneficial in 
addressing these concerns and in establishing policies to 
improve civil rights performance at the Department.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $647,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         780,000
Committee recommendation................................         788,000

\1\ Excludes $17,000 requesed for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee recommends $788,000. This amount 
is $141,000 more than the 2002 level and $8,000 more than the 
budget request. This amount includes an increase of $36,000 for 
pay parity costs and benefits.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $187,647,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      70,499,000
Committee recommendation................................     197,753,000

\1\ Excludes $493,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits, and includes no funding for rental payments.

    Rental payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance 
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General 
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for 
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest 
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
    The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to 
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the 
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to 
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial 
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review 
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an 
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
    Building operations and maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the 
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the 
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides 
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain, 
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the 
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms 
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the 
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW, 
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major 
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began 
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
    Strategic space plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the 
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a 
plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American 
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-
priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the 
operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in 
Washington, DC. To implement this goal, a strategy for 
efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured 
headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been 
proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious 
problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the 
inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities 
and serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South 
Building.
    During fiscal year 1998, the Beltsville Office Facility was 
completed. This facility was constructed with funds 
appropriated to the Department and is located on Government-
owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. In fiscal year 1999, USDA 
began operations at the Beltsville Office Facility.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities 
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the 
Committee recommends $197,753,000. This amount is $10,106,000 
more than the 2002 appropriation and $127,254,000 more than the 
budget request. The Committee does not concur with the 
President's proposal to fund rental payments in the accounts of 
USDA agencies occupying GSA controlled space and provides 
$130,266,000 in this account for rental payments.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2002 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2003 budget       Committee
                                                                2002 estimate       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments..............................................          130,266  ...............          130,266
Building Operations..........................................           31,438           36,522           33,510
Strategic Space Plan.........................................           25,943           33,977           33,977
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................          187,647           70,499          197,753
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Hazardous Materials Management

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $15,665,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      15,685,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,694,000

\1\ Excludes $59,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $15,694,000 for hazardous 
materials management. This amount is $29,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and $9,000 more than the budget request. This 
amount includes an increase of $29,000 for pay parity costs and 
benefits.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $37,079,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      46,398,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,840,000

\1\ Excludes $2,144,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $42,840,000. This amount is $5,761,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and $3,558,000 less 
than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $1,356,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $3,898,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $21,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $3,243,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       3,243,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,493,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee directs the Secretary to transfer the 
administration of the 2501 program to the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service. The Outreach for 
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers will compliment the mission of 
Extension Services. The Committee recognizes that the 
Department has not obligated the $3,243,000 appropriated in 
2002 and provides $3,493,000 for 2003. This amount is $250,000 
more than the 2002 level and the budget request. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to consider multi-year contracts with 
eligible entities to provide stability and efficiencies in this 
effort. The Committee also requests a report by March 1, 2003, 
regarding the progress of this request including guidelines 
that will be used to measure performance.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $3,718,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................       4,157,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,202,000

\1\ Excludes $65,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$4,202,000. This amount is $484,000 more than the 2002 level 
and $45,000 more than the budget request. This amount includes 
an increase of $184,000 for pay parity costs and benefits.
    The Committee provides that not less than $2,605,240 may be 
transferred to agencies funded by this Act to support 
congressional relations' activities at the agency level. Within 
30 days from the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 
allocation of these funds by USDA agency, along with an 
explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of the funds.

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $8,894,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................       9,637,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,744,000

\1\ Excludes $516,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $9,744,000. This amount is $850,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $107,000 more than the budget 
request. This amount includes an increase of $353,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $70,839,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      82,231,000
Committee recommendation................................      79,076,000

\1\ Excludes $4,878,999 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act 
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities 
of the Office of Inspector General which had previously been 
carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $79,076,000. This is $8,237,000 
more than the 2002 appropriation and $3,155,000 less than the 
budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $3,098,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not provide an 
increase of $4,034,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $41,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $32,627,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      37,287,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,951,000

\1\ Excludes $2,554,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $35,951,000. This amount is 
$3,324,000 more than the 2002 appropriation and $1,336,000 less 
than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $1,365,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $1,693,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $6,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

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

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $573,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         780,000
Committee recommendation................................         786,000

\1\ Excludes $17,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $786,000. This amount is $213,000 more than 
the 2002 level and $6,000 more than the budget request. This 
amount includes an increase of $21,000 for pay parity costs and 
benefits.
    Nutrition monitoring activities are vital to shaping 
policies for food safety, child nutrition, food assistance, and 
dietary guidance. While the Committee supports the process 
underway to integrate the National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the Continuing Survey of Food 
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by USDA, it is 
concerned that USDA has failed to continue to conduct the CSFII 
in 2000 and 2001 as the integration process continues. The 
Committee directs USDA to conduct the CSFII to ensure that the 
quality of dietary data collected is not diminished, and survey 
methods capture statistically valid intakes of various 
population groups, especially at-risk groups, and has provided 
a $1,000,000 increase to ARS for this purpose.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $67,200,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      79,243,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,736,000

\1\ Excludes $2,789,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $65,736,000. This amount is $1,464,000 less 
than the 2002 level and $13,507,000 less than the budget 
request.
    This amount includes an increase of $2,031,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $5,914,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $11,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee encourages ERS to fully fund activities 
relating to the improvement of retail price reporting.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the ERS to carry out 
food and nutrition studies through the Small Research Grants 
Program. The Committee provides funding under the Food and 
Nutrition Service for other studies and evaluations relating to 
that agency's programs and that agency's responsibilities for 
administering the food assistance programs within USDA. The 
Committee directs the ERS to work fully with the FNS to ensure 
that all ongoing studies and evaluations are completed to their 
full scope. Further, the Committee provides the Secretary with 
the authority to transfer up to $2,000,000 from FNS to ERS, if 
such a transfer is deemed necessary for ERS to complete ongoing 
studies, or if the Secretary determines that a particular 
proposed study would be more effectively carried out by ERS. 
The Committee expects to be notified each time that such a 
transfer of funds occurs, including the amount of the transfer, 
and a summary of the study for which the transfer was deemed 
necessary.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $113,786,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................     143,659,000
Committee recommendation................................     141,703,000

\1\ Excludes $5,410,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural 
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely 
projections of current agricultural production and measures of 
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural 
sector which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The Service is also responsible for administration of the 
Census of Agriculture, which was transferred from the 
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in 
fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics 
programs. The Census of Agriculture is taken every 5 years and 
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy 
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production 
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings, 
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value 
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, 
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation 
practices. The 1997 Census of Agriculture was released on 
February 1, 1999. The next agricultural census will be 
conducted beginning in January 2003 for the calendar year 2002.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $141,703,000. This 
amount is $27,917,000 more than the 2002 appropriation and 
$1,956,000 less than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $3,091,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $2,801,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $4,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Census of 
Agriculture to collect reliable, accurate data about 
agriculture in the United States, providing a statistical 
overview of U.S. farms and ranches every 5 years. This 
information is critical in order to make informed decisions 
regarding all aspects of the agricultural sector and rural 
America. The Committee's recommendation includes an increase of 
$16,084,000 over the 2002 level for Census of Agriculture 
activities. The Committee understands this increase is 
necessary for NASS to carry out the majority of information 
gathering activities related to the 2002 Census of Agriculture.
    The Committee also encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs 
and Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter 
reporting.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................    $979,464,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\...............................     971,445,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,060,785,000

\1\ Excludes $40,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $42,641,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for 
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil, 
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; 
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the 
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a 
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of 
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental 
conditions.
    ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National 
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information 
and library services through traditional library functions and 
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public 
and private organizations, and individuals.
    As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house 
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for 
conducting and leading the national agricultural research 
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas: 
research on broad regional and national problems, research to 
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 
meet national emergencies, research support for international 
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and 
Congress.
    The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and 
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality 
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to 
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to 
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living 
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of 
technical information and technical products which bear 
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil, 
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's 
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural 
products by observing practices that will maintain a 
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the 
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve 
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's 
balance of payments.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research 
Service, the Committee recommends $1,060,785,000. This is 
$81,321,000 more than the 2002 level and $89,340,000 more than 
the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $23,801,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $2,807,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $234,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,623,000 of the 
savings from project terminations proposed in the budget. These 
savings are to be redirected to those research areas for which 
increased funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee 
does not provide funding for contingencies.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research 
activities. The remaining increase in appropriations from the 
fiscal year 2003 level is to be applied to mandatory pay and 
related cost increases to prevent the further erosion of the 
agency's capacity to maintain a viable research program at all 
research locations.
    The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the 
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the 
purposes identified by Congress.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to 
another without prior notification to and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise 
directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall implement 
appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, and 
activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Aerial application research.--Aerial application is a 
necessary crop protection tool in farming and permits large 
areas to be covered rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective 
applications of large farming areas. The Committee provides an 
increase of $120,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level 
for expanded ARS aerial application research at the College 
Station, TX, research station.
    Agricultural genomes.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of plant/crop genome sequencing and the need to 
identify genes that influence disease resistance, reproduction 
and nutrition and provides an increase of $1,175,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level for the proposed research as 
follows: Beltsville, MD, $475,000; Kerrville, TX, $350,000; and 
St. Paul, MN, $350,000.
    Agricultural genome bioinformatics.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to 
continue work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant 
Species at the National Center for Genome Resources in New 
Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act (Public Law 106-224).
    Agricultural law, Drake University.--The field of 
agricultural law and policy is developing rapidly, with many 
ramifications for agricultural producers and the food and 
agriculture industry. Developments in food and agricultural law 
and policy at the State and local level, in particular, are 
increasingly important to future opportunities for agricultural 
producers and rural communities. The Committee provides an 
increase of $150,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
support of a national center focusing on State and local food 
and agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des 
Moines, Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of 
the center. Of the funding available for this increase, $20,000 
is available to the Leflar School of Law at Fayetteville, AR.
    Agroforestry research.--The Committee expects the ARS to 
continue its support for the South Central Family Farm Research 
Center at Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than 
the fiscal year 2002 level of funding to continue agroforestry 
research in conjunction with work at the University of 
Missouri.
    In addition, emerging research indicates that shiitake 
mushrooms and other similar agroforestry products contain 
important cancer defeating and cholesterol reducing chemicals. 
The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level to the ARS research station at Booneville, AR, 
for expanded cooperative research with the University of 
Missouri Agroforestry Center on plants, and in particular, 
shiitake mushrooms, which contain optimal amounts of these 
chemicals and to test models to substantiate health and 
nutrition claims.
    Animal vaccines.--The U.S. food animal economy continues to 
be threatened by infectious diseases that can devastate the 
cattle, swine, and poultry industries. Increased research to 
investigate the adverse impacts of diseases on cattle, swine, 
and poultry are critically needed to avoid potential economic 
disasters, such as the spread of food and mouth disease. The 
Committee provides an increase of $150,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level to expand current collaborative research between ARS 
and the Universities of Connecticut and Missouri to develop 
more effective animal vaccines.
    Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the fruit research program carried 
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, 
WV, and provides an increase of $350,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level for essential staffing to support the station's 
ongoing research to identify new alternatives for chemical 
control of insects, and to develop disease-resistant trees.
    Appalachian pasture-based beef systems.--The Committee is 
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised 
beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian 
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The 
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University, 
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle 
farmers. The Committee provides an increase of $125,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level for this research, which will ensure 
the economic viability of these farmers and conserve and 
protect the region's environment.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations 
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication 
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research, 
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel 
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition, 
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing 
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research 
Center at Stoneville, MS.
    The Committee notes the tremendous opportunities provided 
through advancements in research related to aquaculture species 
in terms of producer income, U.S. balance of trade, and healthy 
diets for Americans. In view of the variety of ARS aquaculture 
research locations, the Committee believes that adequate 
sharing of information will best facilitate the operations of 
all research locations and requests the ARS to provide a 
listing of specific research projects in the field of 
aquaculture to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and the Senate.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to the 
USDA/ARS National Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research 
Laboratory, Aberdeen, ID, for support for an ARS cereal grain 
chemist/processing specialist assigned to the UI Hagerman 
Station to work on value-added processing of barley and oats to 
produce high-protein concentrates suitable for use in feeds for 
fish, and soluble fiber and starches for food and industrial 
uses.
    Arid lands research.--The challenges for agricultural 
production and natural resource management in the desert 
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense. 
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the 
remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, sustainable 
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and 
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level for expanded research in rangeland resource 
management, irrigated farming technology, and environmental 
horticulture at the Jornada Experimental Range Station at Las 
Cruces, NM.
    Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.--The 
Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and 
health of children from conception through adolescence. The 
Center is leading major research efforts to understand the 
relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and 
lifestyle. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level for expanded investigations on these 
issues.
    Biobased products from agricultural commodities.--The 
Committee is aware of the expanded effort required to develop 
biobased products and bioenergy from agricultural commodities 
which will create new demand for U.S. crops. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,800,000 over the fiscal year 2002 
level for increased research on agricultural biomass feedstock 
and the production of biobased products from agricultural 
commodities. The research will be conducted at the following 
research locations: Madison, WI, $400,000; New Orleans, LA, 
$300,000; Wyndmoor, PA, $500,000; Peoria, IL, $300,000 and 
Albany, CA, $300,000.
    Biological control research.--The Committee has been 
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been 
taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center in the 
area of biological controls of cotton insect pests. The 
economic and environmental benefits of this research could 
eventually reduce the vulnerability of crops to major insect 
pests and create alternatives to traditional crop protection 
methods. The Committee continues funding for this project at 
the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Biomass crop production.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
increased cooperative research between ARS and South Dakota 
State University to further investigate the applicability of 
using a method of fiber extrusion to dry and process wet 
distiller grains from ethanol production into high value feed 
for cattle, as well as conversion to increased ethanol 
production.
    Biomedical materials in plants.--Increased research is 
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a 
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for 
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee 
provides an increase of $425,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for expanded ARS cooperative research with the 
Biotechnology Foundation.
    Biotechnology research to improve crops and livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and 
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for 
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals, 
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology. 
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the 
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the 
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing 
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes 
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and 
analyzed. The Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to support 
cooperative research in genomics and bioinformatics and in the 
use of biophotonics for the imaging of animal physiological 
processes at the cellular level.
    Biotechnology risk assessment.--The National Academy of 
Sciences in a report of April, 2000, ``Genetically Modified 
Pest-Protected Plants,'' affirms that genetically engineered 
organisms are not inherently more dangerous then similar 
organisms derived from conventional selection and breeding. It 
did, however, identify areas that needed further study. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,100,000 for fiscal year 
2003 for research proposed in the President's budget as 
follows: Corvallis, OR; Ames, IA; Phoenix, AZ; $300,000 each 
and Wapato, WA, $200,000.
    Broiler production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler 
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net 
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS 
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This 
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of 
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor, 
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental 
controls. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level to expand cooperative research on 
reducing ammonia levels in poultry litter, improving 
environmental controls, and reducing mortality in broiler 
flocks.
    Canal Point sugarcane research.--The ARS sugarcane research 
laboratory at Canal Point, FL, has successfully contributed to 
the needs of sugarcane growers for 80 years, providing breed 
stock to the growers in Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii. 
The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 funding level to improve the utilization and 
application of ongoing research that will enhance this 
sugarcane variety program.
    Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's 
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S. 
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the 
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research 
urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of 
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish 
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A 
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors 
on disease will lead to improved management practices for 
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee 
provides an increase of $550,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for the comprehensive catfish health research program 
based at the Stoneville, MS, National Warmwater Aquaculture 
Center. This Center is strategically located in the mid-delta, 
proximal to the vast majority of the U.S. commercial catfish 
farming acreage and already has a critical mass of scientists, 
facilities, and instrumentation addressing the disease issue. 
Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded to 
select for fish with disease and parasite resistance, but 
additional scientists, including a parasitologist and 
virologist, are required for a comprehensive disease and 
parasite genetic resistance research program.
    Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The 
Committee is aware of the significance of the research 
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products 
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest 
Technology and continues funding at the fiscal year 2002 level 
for research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing 
risks to consumers.
    Central Great Plains Research Station.--This is the only 
ARS station conducting research aimed at solving dryland 
production problems in Coloradon, NE, Kansas, and Wyoming. The 
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 funding level to the Central Great Plains Research Station 
at Akron, CO, for research on extensive crop rotation 
strategies. Increased research will focus on biological 
diversity to reduce weed, disease, and insects inherent in 
single crop rotation and utilize a complete systems approach to 
quantify comparative yield benefits under various rotation 
schemes.
    Cereal disease research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to support 
the core group of scientists currently performing research at 
the Cereal Disease Research Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota. 
The Committee directs that the current number of scientists be 
maintained to effectively tackle the rust and fusarium head 
blight (FHB) disease which caused $3,000,000,000 in losses to 
wheat and barley farmers over the last several years.
    Children's Nutrition Research Center.--The Children's 
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine, 
Houston, TX, has helped define the role of nutrition in 
children's health, growth, and development; contributed to 
nutritional guidelines used by physicians, parents, and others 
responsible for the care and feeding of children, and is unique 
in it's ability to address a broad array of children's 
nutritional issues. The Committee provides an increase of 
$600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for increased 
investigation of the nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing 
women, and children from conception to adolescence, at the 
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX.
    Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD).--In order to reduce 
livestock losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is 
important to eradicate transmissable spongiform 
encephalopathies (TSE) in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep 
and goats, bovine spongiform encephalopathies (BSE) and chronic 
wasting disease (CWD) of deer and elk are classes of TSE's of 
ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both 
animals and humans. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to the 
Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the National Animal 
Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for urgent research on CWD.
    Coffee and cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative 
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important 
economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in 
South Central America and West Africa. As a globally marketable 
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally 
beneficial choice for small farmers and an incentive to Andean 
farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide 
stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily 
by small farmers in the tropics of South Central America and 
West Africa that is also under severe disease pressure which 
threatens the stability of world supply of cocoa and the 
economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee 
provides an increase of $900,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
funding level to fully realize the research potential of coffee 
and cocoa as alternatives to illegal crops.
    Conservation research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to expand 
important non-irrigated dryland research conducted at the ARS 
Soil Conservation Laboratory, Pendleton, OR. The research is 
directed toward developing better management practices and 
techniques required for sound natural resource conservation in 
the Columbia River Plateau and regional resource areas for 
sustainable crop production.
    Cotton genomics, breeding, variety development, and pest 
resistance.--The Committee recognizes the progress that has 
been made through the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the 
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at 
Stoneville, MS, in the research, development, and transfer of 
improved cotton germplasm to the cotton industry. This 
cooperative research must be accelerated to incorporate new 
genetic material into agronomically-acceptable varieties and to 
transfer reniform nematode and other pest resistance into 
improved cotton lines. An increase of $700,000 is provided from 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level to enhance the public cotton 
breeding program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
    Corn germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in Iowa and 
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, 
livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the 
germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to 
establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production. 
The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level for the ARS Corn Germplasm Research Laboratory 
at Ames, Iowa for expanded research to increase the 
productivity and genetic diversity of maize grown in the United 
States.
    Cotton ginning laboratory.--The Committee continues funding 
at the fiscal year 2002 level for ginning research at the 
Stoneville, MS, laboratory.
    Cotton genetics research.--Global competition in the 
textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to 
adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These 
new technologies require higher fiber strength to operate 
resistance to nematodes and insect pests that annually inflict 
significant losses to the cotton industry. There is a need to 
broaden the genetic base of cotton germplasm with fiber 
properties that will meet today's more efficient yarn spinning 
machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host 
resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
support of a cotton geneticist position at the ARS Cotton 
Breeding laboratory, Florence, SC.
    Crop Production and Food Processing.--The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 2002 level to ARS to continue 
collaborative research with Purdue University on a genomics 
project to continue in the identification and execution of 
critical steps in the development of pest resistance in wheat.
    Dairy forage research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the 
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,150,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for expanded dairy forage research at the center. Of the 
total increase, $150,000 is provided for increased support of 
the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems (WICTS) program.
    Delta nutrition intervention initiative.--The Lower 
Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative is 
a research consortium consisting of ARS and six universities 
located in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. Current 
appropriations have allowed the consortium to develop important 
research on the health and nutrition status, food security and 
diet intake of people who live in the Delta regions of 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
nutrition intervention activities that cannot be carried out 
within currently available funding. Increased funding will 
allow the consortium to initiate community involved planning, 
implement interventions, and initiate research to assess the 
effects on health and nutrition status in a number of counties 
in each of the three States over the next 5 years.
    Emerging diseases of plants and animals.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of research in support of new 
prevention and control strategies for emerging, reemerging and 
exotic diseases of plants and animals. The Committee provides 
an increase of $1,350,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
exotic plant disease research at the following locations: 
Beltsville, MD, $300,000; Frederick, MD, $300,000; Prosser, WA, 
$200,000; Raleigh, NC, $350,000; and Prosser, WA, $250,000. The 
Committee provides an additional $3,100,000 for exotic animal 
disease research as follows: Marek's disease, East Lansing, MI, 
$500,000; Porcine Respiratory disease, Ames, IA, $250,000; Foot 
and Mouth disease, Greenport, NY, $500,000; Newcastle disease, 
Athens, GA, $300,000; BSE/TSE at Albany, CA; Ames, IA; and 
Pullman, WA; $500,000 each.
    Fish disease research.--The development of safe and 
effective vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is 
essential to the growth of the catfish industry. There are 
currently only a number of approved therapeutic compounds 
available for farmers to heal diseases of fish. Vaccinations, 
successful in other animals, appear to be the best means of 
preventing diseases. The Committee provides an increase of 
$600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to the ARS 
Fish Disease and Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL, 
for increased research on the development of commercially 
approved vaccines for catfish.
    Floriculture and nursery research.--Nursery and greenhouse 
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public 
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent 
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation 
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and 
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The 
Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level for expanded ARS floriculture and nursery research 
aimed at reducing chemical use, improved post-harvest life of 
flowers and plants, disease and pest resistant flowers and 
plants, control of root diseases, robotics research, and 
control of run-off from greenhouse and nursery operations.
    Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee provides an 
additional $600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
increased collaborative research with Purdue University in the 
area of food safety and engineering.
    Forage-Livestock Systems.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level 
to ARS to continue a cooperative project with the University of 
Kentucky on tall fescue breeding and improvement efforts to 
develop an enhanced national forage base.
    Forage and range research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and 
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program 
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants, 
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect 
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and 
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
additional research required to develop range and pasture plant 
varieties.
    Formosan Subterranean Termite.--The management of this 
termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This 
termite has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most 
severe infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake 
Charles areas. This insect has caused millions of dollars worth 
of damage with an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New 
Orleans alone. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 level to the Southern Regional 
Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for expanded research 
efforts focusing on improved termite detection systems, 
evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, 
and enhancement of bait technology.
    Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory.--The 
Committee recognizes the threat to long-term sustainability of 
the Northern Great Plains range livestock industry from 
infestations of noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and spotted 
knapweed. The objective of the Fort Keogh, MT, station is to 
develop low-input rangeland management strategies that impede 
or control the spread of noxious weeds into native rangelands 
and planted pastures. The Committee provides an increase of 
$600,000 for this research for the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Glassy-winged sharpshooter.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged 
sharpshooter (GWSS) and Pierce's disease (PD) inflict on U.S. 
vineyards. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new 
shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to 
curb the spread of GWSS-PD. The Committee provides an increase 
of $750,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to the ARS Parlier, 
CA, laboratory to continue its research efforts and 
collaborations to control and eradicate this devastating 
carrier and disease.
    Grain sorghum.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$200,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to the ARS 
Energy, Soil, and Animal Waste Resources Research Unit in 
Bushland, TX, to evaluate the feed value of distillers dried 
grain (DDG). More sorghum is being used for ethanol as farmers 
look to add value to locally produced crops and to provide 
oxygenates for gasoline and DDG for livestock feed. Research is 
needed to determine the relative feeding values of sorghum 
distillers grains so that it can be nutritionally and 
economically evaluated for the cattle feeding industry.
    Grapefruit juice/drug interaction research.--With the 
consumption of grapefruit juice dramatically declining, there 
is a need to examine and attain more precise data on the effect 
of grapefruit juice on the absorption rates of certain 
medications. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 level to the ARS Citrus Research 
Laboratory at Winterhaven, FL, for research to identify and 
characterize the components of grapefruit juice responsible for 
enzyme suppression, understand the dosage affected, and 
determine the rate of consumption for safety and efficacy.
    Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.--Research is needed 
to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern 
Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of 
Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides 
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for this program to be 
carried out by the ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center in 
cooperation with the University of North Dakota School of 
Medicine and Health Sciences.
    Harbor Branch aquaculture initiative.--The Committee 
recognizes that continued expansion of aquaculture enterprises 
in the U.S. would increase domestic competitiveness in seafood 
markets, ease harvest pressures on wild fish stocks, as well as 
help in offsetting existing trade deficits. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for expanded ARS collaborative research with the Harbor 
Branch Oceanographic Institute and the Florida State University 
(FSU) on sustainable marine aquaculture systems. The objectives 
are to design and operate low-cost, energy efficient, zero 
discharge aquaculture production systems to produce warm water 
fish species year round; to expand use of inland agricultural 
land through aquaculture of salt water species that are 
adaptable to fresh water; and to generate new aquaculture 
enterprises.
    Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as 
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and 
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center 
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S. 
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving 
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance. 
The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 funding level for increased research on the genetic 
improvement of hybrid striped bass.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee provides 
the fiscal year 2002 level for the Hawaii Agriculture Research 
Center to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane 
producers and to continue to support the expansion of new crops 
and products, including those from agroforestry, to complement 
sugarcane production in Hawaii.
    Hides and leather research.--The USDA's only hides and 
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional 
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the 
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and 
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S. 
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee 
provides an increase of $100,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
funding level for this research.
    Horticulture research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits 
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation 
catalyzed and now undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other 
small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the 
development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and 
can revitalize small farms in the south. The Committee provides 
an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level 
to expand the cooperative research and development efforts on 
ornamentals, vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
    In addition, Tennessee has a vibrant nursery industry and a 
growing floricultural and ornamental horticulture industry. The 
Agricultural Research Service is establishing a research 
laboratory at the University of Tennessee to jointly conduct 
and collaborate in plant pathology, entomology, horticulture, 
germplasm, and biotechnology research to improve rural and 
suburban economies, and enhance international quality. The 
Committee supports this ARS/UT collaborative initiative to 
establish the Appalachian Horticulture Research Institute at 
Knoxville, TN, and provides an increase of $1,000,000 for 
staffing at this location from the fiscal year 2003 level.
    Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (HNRCA).--The 
HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers 
that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The 
program at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain 
existing scientists and staff as well as to offset inflation 
and spiraling energy costs. The Committee provides an increase 
of $625,000 to ARS from the fiscal year 2002 level to meet 
these resource needs.
    Hyperspectral Imaging Technology for Protection of the Food 
Supply and Agricultural Production.--Through a cooperative 
agreement with the ARS, the Institute for Technology 
Development at the Stennis Space Center has successfully 
applied its hyperspectral imaging capabilities to detect fecal 
contamination on poultry, furthering efforts to increase the 
safety of the Nation's food supply. The Committee is aware that 
this technology could be applied to detection of crop diseases 
such as karnal bunt and rusts, animal diseases such as bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, and mold/toxins found in food and 
feed. The Committee provides fiscal year 2003 funding of 
$700,000, which is to be redirected from the current 
hyperspectral poultry project, to explore hyperspectral imaging 
as a possible tool for finding, identifying, and quantifying 
diseases and infestations that have economic impact and health 
risks either naturally or as a terrorist act.
    Integrated farming systems.--The Committee understands that 
Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation 
in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-
farm environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory 
in Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on 
nutrient management. The Committee provides an additional 
$300,000 for this work from the fiscal year 2002 level.
    IPM strategies for northern climate.--Insect pests, plant 
pathogens, and weed pests are serious threats to Alaska's 
economic viability. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
agricultural research to enhance productivity and profitability 
of Alaska's farming industry, including the preservation and 
management of its valuable natural resources utilizing IPM 
strategies. The Committee provides an increase of $700,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level for expanded research to 
develop IPM application approaches suitable to northern 
latitudes that support viable crop and nursery production 
systems and the sustainability of natural resources.
    Invasive species.--The Committee understands the serious 
impact that invasive species have on production agriculture. 
Invasive species are second only to loss of habitat in causing 
negative impacts on environmental areas and loss of biological 
diversity. The Committee provides an increase of $1,800,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 level for the continued development 
of biological control programs as follows: Beltsville, MD; 
Davis, CA; Wooster, OH; and Ft. Collins, CO; $300,000 each. The 
Committee provides $300,000 for expanded research on the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle. The Committee also provides $300,000 for 
systematics of invasive insects and weeds at Beltsville, MD.
    Johne's Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).--Johne's is a 
contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating 
enteritis and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and 
other wild and domestic ruminants. Infected animals 
intermittently shed the microorganisms into milk and feces. 
Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious, 
slow growth of the microorganisms and the poor reliability of 
the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to 
develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and better 
understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 from the funding 
level available in fiscal year 2002 for expanded research to 
control this devastating disease affecting this Nation's beef 
and dairy industries.
    Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S. 
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance 
and control methods, the Committee provides $300,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 level for research in this area. The Committee 
expects ARS to work with Kansas State University to establish a 
consortium in Manhattan, KS, that will work with other land 
grant universities in this research area.
    Livestock genome sequencing.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the U.S. Meat 
Animal Research Center at Clay Center, NE, for expanded 
genomics research to identify the genes that influence disease 
resistance, reproduction, nutrition, and other economically 
important traits in livestock. This research is to be performed 
in collaboration with the University of Illinois.
    Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus.--The Committee 
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF), infecting 
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2002 
funding level for research on the development of vaccines 
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small 
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation 
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State 
University.
    Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for ARS to initiate collaborative research with the 
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. This research will 
develop high-quality corn in Wisconsin and other Mid-Western 
States for increased nutritional value and adaptation to 
sustainable farming systems. Collaborative research will be 
directed at corn breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm 
research and information dissemination.
    Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics 
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at 
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX, 
and continues the fiscal year 2002 level of funding.
    National Agricultural Library.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for the 
National Agricultural Library for the continued development of 
information technology including new software, 
telecommunications and networking capabilities. These resources 
are recommended in the President's fiscal year 2003 budget.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The 
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the 
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon 
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine 
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is 
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish, 
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for 
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at 
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
    National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.--The 
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville, 
IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial 
producers with a state-of-the-art facility to develop more 
efficient production of ethanol. The plant is scheduled to 
begin operations in early 2003 and will operate on a time-share 
basis to Federal and State agencies, universities, and 
commercial producers. The plant has the near-term potential to 
improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of corn conversion 
for ethanol production. The Committee provides an increase of 
$750,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to fund ARS scientists 
stationed at the pilot plant. The research will utilize both 
wet milled and dry milled projects and will focus on processing 
efficiencies that can be adapted commercially in the near term.
    National nutrition monitoring system.--Health and dietary 
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of 
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical 
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food 
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling, 
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level for the combined national nutrition monitoring 
program.
    National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA.--The 
Committee concurs with the authority to purchase land for 
research at the National Peanut Laboratory at Dawson, GA, as 
provided under Section 7506, Title VII of the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Dawson laboratory, which has 
been conducting research on this property, has entered a lease 
with an option to purchase this land. The Agency will utilize 
available funds and will not require additional appropriations 
to purchase this property.
    National Soil Erosion Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
salaries and related research expenses for a water quality 
researcher stationed at the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion 
Laboratory at West Lafayette, Indiana.
    National sclerotinia initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of controlling this disease which affects 
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils. 
The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level for this research initiative which is centered 
at the ARS research station at Fargo, ND.
    Natural products.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$400,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for the ARS to 
continue and accelerate its cooperative research with the 
National Center for Natural Products Research to discover and 
develop natural product chemicals for use in agriculture.
    Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse 
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture 
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research 
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production 
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory 
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as 
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that 
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee provides 
an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
support of two additional scientist positions required by the 
laboratory to assemble a team of scientists to address the 
diverse economic and environmental problems in the Northern 
Plains.
    Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.--The Committee is aware of 
the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS 
Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney, 
Montana. A major focus of research at the station is targeted 
to biocontrol of invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the 
long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland 
agriculture. Invasive weeds alter ecosystem structure and 
function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and 
requires widespread use of herbicides. The Committee provides 
an increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to 
strengthen this program.
    Noxious weeds in the desert southwest.--Invasive and 
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the 
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be 
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee 
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and 
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental 
Range in Las Cruces and provides an increase of $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level for this research.
    Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains 
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which 
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of 
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the 
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides 
the Agricultural Research Service an increase of $900,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level for research into the complex nature 
of water availability, potential uses, and costs which will 
help determine future water policy in this region. This 
research is to be based in Texas but coordinated with other 
affected States, including Kansas.
    Ornamental and horticulture research.--The Committee 
recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and 
the University of Vermont (UVM). Research currently underway at 
UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM 
research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and 
horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee 
provides an increase of $150,000 for Pear thrips research from 
the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal 
year 2002 level to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical 
Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine control 
of the papaya ringspot virus and to expand the techniques and 
knowledge obtained from this program to other diseases and 
pests; and to coordinate a program to induce nematode 
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease 
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties and to seek funds 
from the private sector to complement Federal funds. The 
Committee views the nematode and ringspot virus activities as 
supportive of a national agricultural research agency and that 
of Hawaii.
    Phytoestrogens research.--The Committee is aware of the 
increased consumption of soy products and controversies 
surrounding the health claims from those products. 
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block 
estrogen, remain a priority issue for USDA researchers. 
Research studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a 
range of human health benefits that can prevent certain 
diseases. However, extensive studies on their long-term 
benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee provides 
an increase of $900,000 for this research from the fiscal year 
2002 level. Current research is carried out at the Southern 
Regional Research Center in New Orleans in collaboration with 
other universities. The Committee directs $300,000 of these 
resources be used in collaboration with the University of 
Toledo to fingerprint and isolate novel products in stressed 
and unstressed soy.
    Plant and animal pathogen research.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
expanded plant pathogen research to be carried out at 
Frederick, MD. The Committee also provides $500,000 for rapid 
detection of poultry diseases at the ARS Poultry Disease 
Laboratory at Athens, GA. New technologies will enhance U.S. 
food security and strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in 
global markets.
    Potato Production.--The Committee recognizes the important 
contributions made by the USDA-ARS research units at Prosser 
and Yakima, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation 
between the units in conducting research and solving problems 
in potato production.
    Potato research.--The Committee is concerned that funding 
levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS' ability to 
address some aspects of potato variety research. The Committee 
provides an additional $30,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level 
to meet research staffing needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research 
laboratory.
    Precision agriculture research.--The Committee provides a 
$750,000 increase from the fiscal year 2002 level for the 
Mandan Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory for a 
precision agriculture research project and global climate 
change research recommended in the budget request at $135,000. 
The precision agriculture research should be conducted in 
cooperation with the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and 
DigitalGlobe. In addition, the Committee has restored the 
funding provided last year for the Hettinger Extension Service 
Southwest Feeders Program. ARS researchers can contribute 
significantly to the knowledge base UMAC can transfer to 
producers.
    Program continuations.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2003 at the same funding level 
provided in fiscal year 2002: Conservation Research, Pendleton, 
OR; Dryland Production Research, Akron, CO; Improved Animal 
Waste Management, Florence, SC; Improved Crop Production 
Practices, Auburn, AL; Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid 
South, Stoneville, MS; Manure Mangement Research, Ames, IA; 
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation, Columbia, MO; National 
Sedimentation Lab, Yazoo/TMDL's, Oxford, MS; National 
Sedimentation Lab, Acoustics, Oxford, MS; National 
Sedimentation Lab, Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS; National Soil 
Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; New England Plant, Soil, and 
Water Laboratory, Orono, ME; Northern Great Plains Research 
Laboratory, Mandan, ND; Pasture Systems and Watershed 
Management, University Park, PA; Soil, Plant Nutrient Research, 
Ft. Collins, CO; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils, 
Oxford, MS; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Source Water 
Protection Initiatives, Columbus, OH/West Lafayette, IN; Waste 
Management Research, Starkville, MS; Watershed Research, 
Colombia, MO; Western Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Aerial 
Application Research, College Station, TX; Alternative Crops 
and Value Added Products, Stoneville, MS; Appalachian Fruit 
Research Station, Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Pasture Based 
Beef Systems, Beaver, WV; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Bee 
Research, Logan, UT/Weslaco, TX; Binational Agricultural 
Research and Development Program (BARD); Bioinformatics 
Institute for Model Plant Species at the National Center for 
Genome Resources, Santa Fe, NM; Biomedical Materials in Plants, 
Beltsville, MD; Cereal Crops Research, Fargo, ND; Cereal Crops 
Research, Madison, WI; Citrus and Horticulture Research, Ft. 
Pierce, FL; Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL/Beltsville, 
MD; Corn Germplasm, Starkville, MS; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, 
and Variety Development, Stoneville, MS; Corn Resistant to 
Aflatoxin for the Mid-South, Starkville, MS; Crop Production 
and Food Processing, Peoria, IL; Ecology of Tamarix, Reno, NV; 
Endophyte Research, Boooneville, AR; Floriculture/Nursery Crops 
Research; Ft. Pierce horticultural Research Lab, Ft. Pierce, 
FL; Golden Nematode, Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume, Pullman, WA; 
Grain Research, Manhattan, KS; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; 
Great Basin Rangelands, Boise ID/Reno, NV; Greenhouse and 
Hydroponics Research, Wooster, OH; Honey Bee Research, Baton 
Rouge, LA; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR; Improved Forage 
Livestock Production, Lexington, KY; Integrated Farming 
Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; IPM for Northern Climate 
Crops, Fairbanks, AK; Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, 
NM; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME; Medicinal Botanical 
Production and Processing, Beaver, WV; Microbial Genomics, 
Pullman, WA/Kerrville, TX; Minor Use Pesticides (IR-4); 
National Germplasm Resources Program; National Sclerotinia 
Initiative, Fargo, ND; National Wheat and Barley Scab 
Initiative (Fusarium Head Blight), various locations; Northern 
Grain Insect Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northwest Small Fruits 
Research, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN; Olive 
Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA/Montpellier, France; Pecan Scab 
Research, Byron, GA; Pierce's Disease, Parlier, CA/Ft. Pierce, 
FL; Plant Stress and Water Conservation, Lubbock, TX; Potato 
Breeding, Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, 
WA; Rangeland Resources Research, Cheyenne, WY; Rangeland 
Resource Management, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire Ants, 
Stoneville, MS; Residue Management in Sugarcane, Houma, LA; 
Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Risk Assessment for Bt. Corn, 
Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley, Pullman, WA; Small 
Farms, Booneville, AR; Small Fruits Research, Poplarville, MS; 
Sorghum Research, Manhattan, KS/Bushland, TX/Stillwater, OK/
Lubbock, TX; Southwest Pecan Research, College Station, TX; 
Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC; Soybean Cyst 
Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean Genetics, Columbia, MO; 
Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak 
Disease, Ft. Detrick, MD; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID; 
Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal Point, FL; Sweet Potato, 
Stoneville, MS; Temperate Fruit Flies, Yakima, WA; Turfgrass 
Research, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural 
Research Center, Hilo, HI; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, 
WI; Virus-free Potato Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Viticulture 
Research, Corvallis, OR; Wheat Quality Research, Pullman, WA/
Wooster, OH/Manhattan, KS/Fargo, ND; Wild Rice, St. Paul MN; 
Woody Genomics and Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville, MS; 
Animal Vaccines, Greenport, NY; Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor 
Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, AR; Aquaculture 
Initiative for Mid-Atlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture 
Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, AR; Aquaculture Systems (Rainbow 
Trout), Leetown, WV; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Avian 
Pneumovirus, Athens, GA; Bovine Genetics, Beltsville, MD; 
Broiler Production in the Mid South, Starkville, MS; Catfish 
Genome, Auburn, AL; Catfish Health, Stoneville, MS; Dairy 
Forage, Madison, WI; Dairy Genetics Research, Beltsville, MD; 
Formosan Subterranean Termite, New Orleans, LA; Livestock and 
Range Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome Mapping 
Initiative, Clay Center, NE (including the cooperative 
agreement carried out at Urbana-Champaign, IL); National Center 
for Cool and Coldwater Aquaculture, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture 
Systems (Freshwater Institute), Leetown, WV; Malignant 
Catarrhal Fever (MCF), Pullman, WA; National Warmwater 
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Poult Enterititis-Mortality 
Syndrome (PEMS), Athens, GA; Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, MD/
Athens,GA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK; Shellfish Genetics, 
Newport, OR; Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center, 
Stuttgart, AR; Trout Genome Mapping, Leetown, WV; Vaccines and 
Microbe Control for Fish Health, Auburn, AL; Aflatoxin in 
Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; 
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation, Peoria, IL; 
Cotton Ginning Research, Las Cruces, NM; Food Safety for 
Listeria and E.coli; Natural Products, Oxford, MS; Barley Food 
Health Benefits Research, Beltsville, MD; Diet and Immune 
Function, Little Rock, AR; Nutritional Requirements Research, 
Houston, TX; Animal Welfare Information Center (NAL), 
Beltsville, MD; National Center for Agriculture Law (NAL); 
Honey Bee Research Laboratory, Tuscon, AZ; Bee Research 
Laboratory, Beltsville, MD; Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN; National 
Sedimentation Laboratory/Seismic and Acoustics Technologies in 
Soils, Oxford, MS; Midwest/Mid-South Irrigation, Columbia, MO; 
Soft Wheat Research Laboratory, Wooster, OH; Wheat Quality 
Research, Wooster, OH; and Minor Use Pesticides, Corvallis, OR.
    Proposed closure and consolidation of laboratories and 
programs.--The President's budget recommends a number of 
location closures, consolidations and reductions of ongoing 
research. The Committee does not concur with proposals to close 
selected research laboratories and consolidate and terminate 
related ongoing research programs. The Committee directs the 
Agency to maintain these important research programs and 
laboratories and maintains funding which was eliminated under 
the President's budget. The research laboratories and ongoing 
base programs to be continued and restored by this Committee 
are as follows: the Avian Disease and Oncology Laboratory, East 
Lansing, MI; Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA; 
new England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, Orono, 
ME; the Honey Bee Research Laboratories located at Beltsville, 
MD; Baton Rouge, LA; and Tucson, AZ; the Cereal Crops Quality 
Research Laboratories located at Fargo, ND; Madison, WI; and 
Wooster, OH; Biotechnology Research and Development 
Corporation, Peoria, IL; Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, IL; 
and the research and laboratories impacted at the Western 
Regional Research Center, Albany, CA.
    Regional grains genotyping research.--Current regional ARS 
laboratories characterize germplasm and improve resistance to 
rusts, blights and insect pests. Regional genotyping centers 
will overcome the barriers to practical use through DNA 
extraction and high-throughout marker screening procedures. The 
Committee strongly supports this regional research program and 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level for this research to be carried out at the ARS research 
laboratory at Raleigh, NC.
    Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and 
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons 
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant 
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests. 
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests 
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the 
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The 
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for 
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt 
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate 
these strategies. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,100,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to ARS at 
Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a national program for devising 
the most effective and economically sustainable production 
systems for ensuring the long-term integrity of Bt crop 
protection and resistance management.
    Seafood waste.--The disposal of seafood waste continues to 
be a national and international problem. Additional research is 
needed to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a 
possible source of additional income for seafood producers. The 
Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska 
collaborative research project on feedstuff that can be 
generated from materials usually wasted during processing of 
seafoods. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from 
the level of funding available in fiscal year 2002 for expanded 
research to address this problem.
    Sedimentation issues in flood-control dam rehabilitation.--
Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the 
United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000 
watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a 
$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control, 
municipal water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat 
enhancement. The life expectancy of these dams is projected to 
be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity, 
structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations 
have become more strict. The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to ARS at 
Oxford, MS, for assessing the efficiency of these structures in 
regulating floodwater, including the use of acoustics 
techniques, and hazards that the sediments may pose if 
introduced into the environment.
    Shellfish genetics.--The West Coast has become the largest 
regional producer of oysters in the United States with an 
annual value of $69,000,000. Domestic production does not meet 
national demands. ARS has established a shellfish genetics 
research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and food 
quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this multi-
State research program and provides an additional $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level for shellfish genetics 
research at the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science 
Center in Newport, OR.
    Silverleaf Whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known 
as the sweetpotato whitefly, causes millions of dollars in crop 
damage in several States, including Hawaii. The Committee 
recommends participation by all affected States in the 
collaborative effort to control this pest.
    Small fruits research.--The Committee supports the ongoing 
research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and Pathology 
Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh and 
processed berries and grapes in both domestic and international 
markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
level of funding for this research which involves cooperation 
between industry, State and Federal research.
    Soil dynamics research.--The extent of soil degradation in 
the South not only impairs soil and water quality but also 
reduces profitability and economic sustainability of farms in 
the region. Improving profitability of farms in the South is 
critical to rural economies as farm numbers continue to 
decline. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level to the ARS Soil Dynamics 
Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for expanded research to develop 
technologies and strategies for managing soils to increase farm 
profitability, and preserve the soil resource for future 
generations.
    Soil, plant, nutrient research.--The Committee understands 
the important contributions made by the ARS Ft. Collins Soil, 
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and provides an additional $120,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to support the cropping 
systems and nitrogen management research program carried out at 
this laboratory.
    Sorghum research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of 
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and 
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses 
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over 
$2,100,000,000 in 1999. The Committee provides an increase of 
$150,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level for expanded 
research at the ARS Grain Sorghum Research Laboratory, 
Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of sorghum quality and the 
development of alternative uses of this important crop.
    Sudden oak disease syndrome.--This is a fungus that has 
afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in 
the last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus 
is spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted 
species can be treated. The Committee is concerned about the 
potential spread of the fungus to other parts of the country 
without the appropriate treatment and management of the 
disease. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 level to the ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research 
laboratory for research critical in stemming the spread of this 
disease.
    Sugarbeet research.--There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets 
grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research 
technologies to maintain and enhance production and 
profitability. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 funding level to support research to 
reduce irrigation and energy costs essential to sugarbeet 
production. This research is carried out at the ARS Kimberly, 
ID, research station.
    Sugarcane research.--The Committee is aware of the urgent 
need for ARS research to provide viable, cost-effective ``green 
cane'' harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to 
burning cane in the field. The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level for this 
research to be carried out at the Houma, LA, research station.
    Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value, 
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved 
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic 
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling 
the level of production per acre, further increasing the 
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee provides 
an increase of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level 
for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to conduct research on sweet potato 
production in cooperation with the Alcorn State University 
Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou, MS.
    Swine lagoon alternatives research.--The Committee is aware 
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory 
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost 
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The 
Committee provides an increase of $600,000 for this research 
from the fiscal year 2002 funding level.
    Tree Fruit Industry.--The Committee believes the U.S. tree 
fruit industry is a vital part of the economy in many regions 
of this country, and its economic viability is seriously 
threatened by an unprecedented downturn in profitability. To 
enhance its competitiveness, the Committee believes the 
industry needs additional tools to reduce its costs. The 
Committee recommends that USDA consult with the U.S. tree fruit 
industry to develop, enhance and disseminate a range of new 
approaches and technologies, including: fruit genomics, fruit 
quality, precision agriculture applications, sensor technology, 
and intelligent and automated orchard and fruit handling 
systems that will lower costs and improve fruit quality. The 
Committee requests that USDA develop a plan to address the tree 
fruit industry's needs and report its progress to the Committee 
no later than January 1, 2003.
    Trout genome mapping.--The Committee recognizes the 
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and 
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold 
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile 
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian 
region. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level for research on cool and cold 
water species at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture, in collaboration with West Virginia University.
    Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.--The Committee is aware of the 
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in 
Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with a fund as 
appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer generic 
resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University of 
Hawaii breeding lines for the impacted vegetable crops.
    USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--
The USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory, 
Orono, ME, performs a critical function that benefits not only 
the Maine economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The 
research performed at this laboratory--including cropping 
systems and management practices, efficient use of nutrients 
and water, and control of pathogens, insects and weeds--
benefits numerous agricultural interests, most notably the 
potato and livestock industries.
    It is especially vital to New England potato growers that 
this lab continue and even increase its important research. The 
laboratory conducts experiments to address unique challenges 
that face potato growers both in the region and across the 
Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example, has 
included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic 
that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000 
annually. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS 
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New 
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato 
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the 
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the 
grower's fields.
    The Committee provides funding at no less than the fiscal 
year 2002 level to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and 
Water Laboratory and research programs.
    U.S. National Plant Germplasm System.--The Committee 
recognizes the need to collect, identify, characterize and 
incorporate plant germplasm into centralized gene banks. The 
value of the U.S. germplasm collections is increasingly clear 
with the discovery of new genomics tools that can rapidly 
identify scientifically and commercially useful genes. The 
Committee provides an increase of $2,650,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level for this program as requested in the budget for 
the following locations: Beltsville, MD, $300,000; Riverside, 
CA, Parlier, CA, Fort Collins, CO, Corvallis, OR, Davis, CA, 
Raleigh, NC, Madison, WI, Hilo, HI, and Mayaguez, PR, $250,000 
each; and Pullman, WA, $100,000.
    Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee 
restores base funding not included in the Administration's 
budget request, and provides an increase of $300,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 level for operating the U.S. Pacific Basin 
Agricultural Research Center. Of the amount restored for fiscal 
year 2002 and the added amount provided for fiscal year 2003, 
one-third is for the Center to continue the recruitment and 
hiring of scientists and technicians at rates consistent with 
construction of the Center and its mission; one-third is for 
the University of Hawaii Hilo to increase its capacity to 
complement the research of the Center; and one-third is for the 
University of Hawaii Manoa for improving its statewide capacity 
to transfer research results and to communicate industry-
identified needs and issues to the research community.
    U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee is aware of the 
important scientific staffing requirements of the newly 
completed U.S. Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC. 
Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority 
research and to maximize use of the facility. An increase of 
$600,000 is provided from the fiscal year 2002 level for plant 
virologist and pathologist positions.
    Virus free fruit tree cultivars.--The Committee recognizes 
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties 
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery 
industries. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for 
fiscal year 2003 to implement new technologies for more rapid 
and dependable methods of pathogen detection and to provide 
secure production and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree 
cultivars. The collaborative research is to be carried out at 
the Prosser, WA research station with the Irrigated Agriculture 
Research and Extension Center.
    Viticulture research.--With the emerging importance of the 
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 
funding level for the viticulture research position at the 
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center, for 
research at the Center, and for cooperative research agreements 
with University of Idaho researchers for viticulture research. 
It also provides an additional $400,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 funding level to enhance viticulture research at the 
Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research (NWCSFR). Of this 
funding increase, $200,000 is to support additional research at 
the USDA/ARS NWCSFR, and $200,000 is to be awarded 
competitively for collaborative research between the University 
of Idaho, Washington State University and Oregon State 
University. In addition, the Committee supports research 
carried out at ARS' Prosser, Washington laboratory and provides 
an increase of $150,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for 
collaborative work with Washington State University on 
winegrape plant virus research.
    Waste management research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to the 
ARS to continue an expanded joint research project with Western 
Kentucky University to examine the use of chicken litter as a 
fertilizer source for fescue pasture, as a nutrient source for 
cattle, and other agricultural applications such as mushroom 
culturing.
    Water quality/water use research.--Agricultural producers 
in the Southeast are seeking solutions to meet reduced 
irrigation requirements while maintaining or enhancing their 
net returns. The National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson, 
GA, is conducting research to find solutions to a more 
restrictive water supply that impacts agriculture and rural 
economies in Southwest, Georgia. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level for these 
investigations at the Dawson laboratory.
    Watershed research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2002 level of funding to ARS for laboratory 
analysis of water samples collected during implementation of, 
and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, 
Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
    Western grazinglands research.--The Committee is aware of 
the important rangeland research program conducted at the 
Burns, OR, laboratory to control invasive weeds which affect 
the Great Basin. Research is targeted to management of 
rangelands, conservation, and sustainable practices. The 
Committee provides an increase of $750,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level for this research.
    Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.--The Committee recognizes 
the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality 
Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee provides an 
additional $150,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to enhance 
its ability to handle more samples, modernize equipment, and 
develop new predictive quality tests.
    Wind erosion research.--The Committee provides funding for 
the Wind Erosion Unit in Manhattan, KS, at the fiscal year 2002 
level. The Committee directs the ARS to avoid reprogramming or 
routing any of the provided funds to or through other wind 
erosion facilities in the ARS system during fiscal year 2003.
    Wheat and barley scab initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS 
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight 
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to 
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee provides 
an additional $600,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for this research.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................    $118,987,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................  \1\ 16,580,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,955,000

\1\ Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $73,000,000 for 
provided by Public Law 107-117.

    The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was 
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, 
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural 
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items 
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the 
regular account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$100,955,000. This is $18,032,000 less than the 2002 
appropriation and $84,375,000 more than the budget request. The 
Committee's specific recommendations are indicated in the 
following table:

                                          ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                       State and facility                                           2003 budget   recommendation
                                                                   2002 enacted      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory,                 8,400  ..............  ..............
 Maricopa.......................................................
California:
    Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis..............           5,000  ..............  ..............
    Western Regional Research Center, Albany....................           3,800  ..............  ..............
District of Columbia: U.S. National Arboretum...................           4,600           3,000           3,000
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo...           3,000  ..............           3,000
Idaho: Advanced Genetics Laboratory, Aberdeen...................             500  ..............           4,600
Illinois:
    National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research,                 6,500  ..............  ..............
     Peoria.....................................................
Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames......................          40,000  ..............          20,000
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing and Production Research Center,               3,000  ..............           4,280
 Manhattan......................................................
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research Center,            3,000  ..............           9,150
 Orono/Franklin.................................................
Maryland:
    Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville...           1,800           7,400  ..............
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville.........           3,000           4,180           7,180
Minnesota: Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul..................             300  ..............           3,200
Mississippi:
    Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville..............             800  ..............           9,200
    National Biological Control Laboratory, Stoneville..........           8,400  ..............  ..............
    Plant Propagation Facility, Oxford..........................  ..............  ..............           2,000
New Mexico: Jornado Experimental Range Management Research                   475  ..............  ..............
 Laboratory, Las Cruces.........................................
New York: Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport..........           3,762           2,000           2,000
Oklahoma: Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward......           1,500  ..............           8,000
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor........           5,000  ..............  ..............
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston...........           4,500  ..............           1,400
South Dakota: Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory,                    850  ..............           8,600
 Brookings......................................................
Utah: Poisonous Plant Laboratory, Logan.........................           5,600  ..............           1,495
West Virginia:
    National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown           2,200  ..............  ..............
    Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville..................  ..............  ..............             475
Wisconsin:
    Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison.........................           3,000  ..............           8,400
    Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield..................  ..............  ..............           5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         118,987          16,580         100,955
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee provides funds for the design of the U.S. 
Vegetable Laboratory. Funds are provided for design and 
construction of the Nutrient Management Research Laboratory. 
Funds are also provided to complete construction of the Cereal 
Disease Laboratory, the Cereal Crops Laboratory, Phases III and 
IV of the U.S. Grain Marketing Research Laboratory, the 
Franklin location of the Northeast Marine Cold Water 
Aquaculture Research Center, the Southern Horticultural 
Laboratory, the Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory, the 
Plant Propagation Facility, Phase I of the Southern Plains 
Research Center, and greenhouse facilities in conjunction with 
the Poisonous Plant Laboratory. The funds provided for the 
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center are for the 
construction of the poultry facility and to complete the 
restoration effort of the damaged and destroyed facilities as a 
result of the deadly tornado strike on September 24, 2001. 
Additional funds are provided toward modernization and 
construction of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research 
Center, Advanced Genetics Laboratory, National Animal Disease 
Center, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the Appalachian 
Fruit Research Station, and the U.S. National Arboretum. Due to 
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the 
full amount required to complete construction of all projects.
    Columbia, MO.--The Committee directs the ARS to provide a 
report on the requirements, feasibility, and scope for 
construction of a new facility to accommodate space needs for 
personnel located at the ARS Plant Genetics Research laboratory 
in Columbia, MO. The report should detail building size, cost, 
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other 
requirements required in collaboration with the University of 
Missouri. The report should detail existing and planned program 
and resource requirements for this location. The report is to 
be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate by March 1, 2003.
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.--The Jamie 
Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located 
in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. 
Millions of acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are 
located in this Delta area of Mississippi and millions more are 
in the Mississippi Floodplain of Louisiana, Arkansas, and 
Tennessee. The Delta leads the world in channel catfish 
production with approximately 100,000 acres of ponds. 
Approximately 200 ARS personnel are located at the Whitten 
Center, of which 65 are scientists conducting research to 
increase the efficiency of food and fiber production. The ARS 
Mid South Area Office is located in the Whitten Center along 
with the Area Information Technology Office.
    The Committee is aware that the main buildings of the 
Whitten Center were constructed in 1968 and that present design 
of these facilities is obsolete and the laboratories do not 
efficiently accommodate modern biotechnology research. A fiscal 
year 1999 facility condition survey revealed the need to 
replace all HVAC and utility support systems and stripping of 
all laboratories and offices to the concrete walls and 
rebuilding to meet all current codes and standards for safety, 
fire protection, accessibility, and air quality. The Committee 
directs the ARS to report to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House and Senate by March 1, 2003, on its plan for 
facilities modernization at this location, including building 
requirements, costs and schedule for completion of this work, 
and urges the Administration to request funding for this 
modernization project in its fiscal year 2004 budget.
    National Agricultural Library.--The Committee notes that 
the Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library completed a 
facility condition study in 1991. The estimate to correct 
identified deficiencies at that time was $18,000,000. Because 
of escalating costs, funds required to correct these 
deficiencies are now estimated to be $32,000,000, a 78 percent 
increase over the original estimate. The Committee directs the 
Agency to review the costs and deficiencies identified 12 years 
ago; reassess those requirements; and compare current 
requirements and costs in light of new program technologies and 
needs. Detail infrastructure needs and phase requirements and 
options, related costs, and detail appropriated funds already 
committed to this project.
    Pullman, WA.--The Committee is aware of the need for 
facilities to accommodate scientists at Pullman, WA and directs 
the ARS to conduct a feasibility study on the location's 
facility requirements including scientific capacity, size, and 
cost including greenhouse and other support facility space 
requirements. The report is to be submitted to Committee on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2003.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $542,062,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................     552,549,000
Committee recommendation................................     611,729,000

\1\ Excludes $1,084,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States to support 
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to 
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research 
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2) 
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the 
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 
Act of 1998; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to 
encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct 
agricultural research and education through the State 
agricultural experiment stations of the 50 States, the District 
of Columbia, and the territories; by approved schools of 
forestry; by the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee 
University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other 
eligible institutions.
    The research and education programs participate in a 
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and 
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For research and education activities of the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $611,729,000. This amount is $69,667,000 more than 
the 2002 appropriation and $59,180,000 more than the budget 
request. This includes an increase of $645,000 for pay parity 
costs and benefits. This does not include an increase of 
$51,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the 
budget.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities of the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget request levels:

    COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2002                           Committee
                                                                 appropriation    2003 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch act......................................         180,148         180,148          185,553
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)..............          21,884          21,884           22,541
Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University.............          34,604          34,604           35,643
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
    Advanced genetic technologies (KY)........................             600  ...............             750
    Advanced spatial technologies (MS)........................             978  ...............           1,000
    Aegilops cylindricum/jointed goatgrass (WA)...............             367  ...............             367
    Agricultural diversification (HI).........................             128  ...............             128
    Agricultural diversity--Red River Trade Corridor (MN, ND).             400  ...............             400
    Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA)..............             360  ...............  ...............
    Agriculture science (OH)..................................  ..............  ...............           1,000
    Agriculture water usage (GA)..............................             293  ...............             293
    Agroecology (MD)..........................................             400  ...............             400
    Air quality (TX)..........................................             640  ...............             750
    Alliance for food protection (GA, NE).....................             293  ...............             299
    Alternative crops (ND)....................................  ..............  ...............             400
    Alternative crops for arid lands (TX).....................             100  ...............  ...............
    Alternative nutrient management (VT)......................             186  ...............             190
    Alternative salmon products (AK)..........................             631  ...............             631
    Alternative uses for tobacco (MD).........................             360  ...............             360
    Animal disease research (WY)..............................  ..............  ...............             500
    Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)........           1,598  ...............           1,598
    Apple Fire Blight (MI, NY)................................             489  ...............             489
    Aquaculture (AR)..........................................             232  ...............             232
    Aquaculture (FL)..........................................             490  ...............  ...............
    Aquaculture (LA)..........................................             322  ...............             400
    Aquaculture (MS)..........................................             579  ...............             592
    Aquaculture (NC)..........................................             293  ...............             293
    Aquaculture (VA)..........................................             100  ...............             150
    Aquaculture (ID, WA)......................................             600  ...............             800
    Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)........             733  ...............             750
    Armillaria root rot (MI)..................................             160  ...............             160
    Asparagus technology and production (WA)..................             260  ...............             260
    Babcock Institute (WI)....................................             588  ...............             600
    Beef technology transfer (MO).............................             294  ...............             294
    Berry research (AK).......................................  ..............  ...............             200
    Bi-National agriculture & development (BARD)..............             400  ...............             400
    Biomass-based energy reserach (OK, MS)....................             960  ...............           1,250
    Biotechnology (NC)........................................             306  ...............             306
    Biotechnology Test Production (IA)........................  ..............  ...............             500
    Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA)........             242  ...............             242
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)..................................             318  ...............             400
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)..................................             485  ...............             485
    Carbon sequestration (CO).................................  ..............  ...............             250
    Center for food quality (UT)..............................  ..............  ...............             250
    Center for Rural Studies (VT).............................             240  ...............             500
    Chesapeake Bay agroecology/pfiesteria initiative (MD).....             280  ...............             500
    Childhood obesity & nutrition (VT)........................  ..............  ...............             250
    Citrus canker (FL)........................................             490  ...............  ...............
    Citrus tristeza...........................................             725  ...............  ...............
    Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA)..............             665  ...............             665
    Cool season legume research (ID, WA)......................             321  ...............             321
    Cotton fiber quality (GA).................................             400  ...............  ...............
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)..................................             172  ...............             172
    Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ).............             216  ...............             216
    Crop integration and production (SD)......................             200  ...............             350
    Crop diversification (MO).................................             800  ...............             800
    Crop pathogens (NC).......................................  ..............  ...............             400
    Dairy and meat goat research (TX).........................              63  ...............              63
    Dairy farm profitability (PA).............................             294  ...............             500
    Delta rural revitalization (MS)...........................             201  ...............             205
    Designing foods for health (TX)...........................             690  ...............             750
    Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)................................             400  ...............  ...............
    Drought mitigation (NE)...................................             196  ...............             200
    Ecosystems (AL)...........................................             489  ...............  ...............
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX).............................           1,176  ...............           1,450
    Environmental biotechnology (RI)..........................             400  ...............             750
    Environmental horticulture (FL)...........................             400  ...............  ...............
    Environmental research (NY)...............................             391  ...............  ...............
    Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)....................             222  ...............  ...............
    Environmentally-safe products (VT)........................             240  ...............             250
    Exotic pest diseases (CA).................................           1,600  ...............           1,800
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)...............................             286  ...............             286
    Farm injuries and illnesses (NC)..........................             278  ...............             278
    Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT).....................             833  ...............             833
    Feedstock conversion (SD).................................             560  ...............             560
    Fish & shellfish technologies (VA)........................             465  ...............             465
    Floriculture (HI).........................................             400  ...............             400
    Food Chain Economic Analysis (IA).........................  ..............  ...............             100
    Food & Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO).....           1,000  ...............           1,800
    Food irradiation (IA).....................................             245  ...............             245
    Food Marketing Policy Center (CT).........................             484  ...............             484
    Food processing center (NE)...............................              42  ...............              42
    Food quality (AK).........................................             342  ...............             350
    Food safety (AL)..........................................             608  ...............           1,600
    Food safety (OK, ME)......................................             400  ...............             800
    Food safety (TX)..........................................  ..............  ...............             250
    Food safety research consortium (NY)......................             800  ...............  ...............
    Food safety risk assesment (ND)...........................             800  ...............           1,500
    Food security (WA)........................................             400  ...............  ...............
    Food Systems Research Group (WI)..........................             490  ...............             500
    Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)...........             367  ...............             500
    Forestry (AR).............................................             512  ...............             512
    Genetic commodity promotions, research & evaluation (NY)..             194  ...............  ...............
    Genomics (MS).............................................             640  ...............             800
    Global change/ultraviolet radiation.......................           1,402           2,500            2,500
    Grain sorghum (KS)........................................             104  ...............             175
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture                414  ...............             414
     (ID, OR, WA).............................................
    Greenhouse nurseries (OH).................................  ..............  ...............             300
    Hoop barns (IA)...........................................             200  ...............             225
    Human nutrition (IA)......................................             463  ...............             463
    Human nutrition (LA)......................................             800  ...............             800
    Human nutrition (NY)......................................             609  ...............  ...............
    Hydroponic tomato production (OH).........................             100  ...............  ...............
    Illinois/Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology..............           1,214  ...............           1,214
    Improved dairy management practices (PA)..................             389  ...............             400
    Improved early detection of crop disease (NC).............             194  ...............             194
    Improved fruit practices (MI).............................             239  ...............             239
    Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)....             640  ...............             950
    Infectious disease research (CO)..........................             640  ...............             800
    Institute for biobased products & food science (MT).......  ..............  ...............           1,000
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)...........           1,222  ...............           1,222
    Integrated production systems (OK)........................             176  ...............             176
    Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND)...........             360  ...............             360
    International arid lands consortium.......................             484  ...............             484
    Iowa Biotechnology Consortium.............................           1,530  ...............           1,530
    Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX).......................             558  ...............             558
    Livestock genome sequencing (IL)..........................             400  ...............  ...............
    Lowbush blueberry research (ME)...........................             254  ...............             265
    Maple research (VT).......................................             120  ...............             300
    Meadowfoam (OR)...........................................             293  ...............             293
    Michigan biotechnology consortium.........................             481  ...............             481
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance..............             452  ...............             461
    Midwest agricultural products (IA)........................             632  ...............             632
    Midwest poultry consortium................................             400  ...............  ...............
    Milk safety (PA)..........................................             600  ...............             750
    Minor use animal drugs (IR-4).............................             588             588   ...............
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)..................................             391  ...............             391
    Montana sheep institute (MT)..............................             400  ...............             675
    Multi-commodity research (OR).............................             356  ...............             356
    Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)............             124  ...............             124
    National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY)...             343  ...............             343
    National biological impact assessment program.............             248             253              253
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM)..............             147  ...............             147
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV)....................             400  ...............             600
    New crop opportunities (AK)...............................             485  ...............             500
    New crop opportunities (KY)...............................             735  ...............             750
    Non-food uses of agricultural products (NE)...............              64  ...............              64
    Nursery, greenhouse and turf specialities (AL)............             320  ...............             320
    Organic Cropping (WA).....................................  ..............  ...............             300
    Organic waste utilization (NM)............................             100  ...............             100
    Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)........................             400  ...............  ...............
    Ozone air quality (CA)....................................             400  ...............             400
    Pasture and forage research (UT)..........................             244  ...............             250
    Peach tree short life (SC)................................             175  ...............             225
    Pest control alternatives (SC)............................             280  ...............             280
    Phytophthora root rot (NM)................................             135  ...............             135
    Phytoremediation Plant Research (OH)......................             280  ...............  ...............
    Pierce's disease (CA).....................................           1,960  ...............           2,500
    Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging                 244  ...............             244
     (NM).....................................................
    Potato research...........................................           1,568  ...............           1,568
    Precision agriculture (KY)................................             733  ...............             750
    Preharvest food safety (KS)...............................             208  ...............             208
    Preservation and processing research (OK).................             221  ...............             221
    Protein utilization (IA)..................................             186  ...............           1,000
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM).................................             320  ...............             320
    Red snapper research (AL).................................             960  ...............  ...............
    Regional barley gene mapping project......................             760  ...............             760
    Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX).......             287  ...............             287
    Renewable Oil Resources from desert plants (NM)...........             196  ...............             196
    Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)............             400  ...............             500
    Rural development centers (LA, ND)........................  ..............  ...............             177
    Rural obesity (NY)........................................  ..............  ...............             500
    Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)............           1,040  ...............           1,040
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)..................................             320  ...............             320
    Satsuma mandarin orange research (AL).....................             800  ...............             800
    Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, &                      298  ...............             305
     marketing (MS)...........................................
    Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)........           1,142  ...............           1,200
    Seafood safety (MA).......................................             400  ...............             400
    Seed research (AK)........................................  ..............  ...............             350
    Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID).........................             392  ...............             400
    Soil and environmental quality (DE).......................             120  ...............             150
    Southwest consortium for plant genetics & water resources.             392  ...............             392
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO)................................             686  ...............             686
    Soybean research (IL).....................................             800  ...............             800
    STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest.............             588  ...............             588
    Sudden oak death (CA).....................................  ..............  ...............             150
    Sustainable agriculture (CA)..............................             400  ...............             400
    Sustainable agriculture (MI)..............................             435  ...............             435
    Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)........             123  ...............             123
    Sustainable agriculture systems (NE)......................              59  ...............              59
    Sustainable beef supply (MT)..............................           1,000  ...............           1,000
    Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources              400  ...............             775
     (VA).....................................................
    Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT)........             452  ...............             452
    Sustainable swine producing & marketing (MN)..............  ..............  ...............             275
    Synthetic gene technology (OH)............................             168  ...............  ...............
    Swine waste management (NC)...............................             489  ...............             489
    Technological development of renewable resources (MO).....             294  ...............  ...............
    Tick borne disease prevention (RI)........................  ..............  ...............             150
    Tillage, silviculture, waste management (LA)..............             400  ...............             400
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)....................................             244  ...............  ...............
    Tropical aquaculture (FL).................................             194  ...............  ...............
    Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR..................           8,000  ...............           5,781
    Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)......................             600  ...............             600
    Uniform farm management program (MN)......................  ..............  ...............             300
    Value-added product development from agricultural                      324  ...............             500
     resources (MT)...........................................
    Value-added products (IL).................................             120  ...............  ...............
    Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA).......................           1,600  ...............           1,600
    Water conservation (KS)...................................              79  ...............              79
    Water treatment (RI)......................................  ..............  ...............             300
    Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)...             480  ...............             480
    Weed control (ND).........................................             426  ...............             435
    West Nile virus (IL)......................................  ..............  ...............             750
    Wetland plants (LA).......................................             587  ...............             600
    Wheat genetic research (KS)...............................             255  ...............             255
    Wheat sawfly research (MT)................................             505  ...............             505
    Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN).....           5,670  ...............           6,170
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY)................................             294  ...............             294
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, special research grants..........................          97,206           3,341          104,234
                                                               =================================================
Improved pest control:
    Emerging pests/critical issues \1\........................             200  ...............  ...............
    Expert IPM decision support system........................             177             177              177
    Integrated pest management................................           2,725           2,725            2,725
    IR-4 minor crop pest management...........................          10,485          10,485           10,485
    Pest management alternatives..............................           1,619           1,619            1,619
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest control............................          15,206          15,006           15,006
                                                               =================================================
National research initiative..................................         120,452         240,000          163,986
                                                               =================================================
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433).........................           5,098           5,098            5,251
Alternative crops.............................................             924  ...............           1,000
Critical Agricultural Materials Act...........................             720  ...............           1,500
1994 Institutions research program............................             998             998            1,000
Institution challenge grants..................................           4,340           5,500            4,340
Graduate fellowships grants...................................           2,993           3,500            2,993
Multicultural scholars program................................             998             998              998
Hispanic education partnership grants.........................           3,492           3,492            3,500
Capacity building grants (1890 Institutions)..................           9,479           9,479           11,479
Payments to the 1994 Institutions.............................           1,549           1,549            1,700
Alaska Native-Serving & Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions             2,997           2,997            3,500
 Education Grants.............................................
Secondary agriculture education...............................           1,000           1,000            1,000
Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE...........          12,500           9,230           15,000
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)...............................           3,996           3,996            5,000
Federal administration:
    Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA)..............  ..............  ...............             400
    Agriculture development in the American Pacific...........             552  ...............             552
    Agriculture waste utilization (WV)........................             600  ...............             750
    Agriculture water policy (GA).............................             600  ...............             675
    Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)........             294  ...............             310
    Animal waste management (OK)..............................             320  ...............             320
    Aquaculture (OH)..........................................             400  ...............             400
    Aquaculture (PA)..........................................  ..............  ...............             450
    Biotechnology (MS)........................................             680  ...............             800
    Botanical research (UT)...................................             640  ...............             640
    Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)........             600  ...............             600
    Center for innovative food technology (OH)................             765  ...............             765
    Center for North American studies (TX)....................             200  ...............             200
    Cotton research (TX)......................................             880  ...............             880
    Feed efficiency (WV)......................................             160  ...............             160
    Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO)..............             340  ...............  ...............
    Geographic information system.............................           1,199  ...............           1,600
    Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH)..............             100  ...............  ...............
    Government Paperwork Elimination Act......................  ..............           2,250            2,250
    Livestock marketing information center (CO)...............             196  ...............             196
    Mariculture (NC)..........................................             360  ...............             360
    Mississippi Valley State University.......................             633  ...............           1,200
    National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (GA)...........             391  ...............  ...............
    Office of Extramural Programs.............................             439             448              448
    Pay costs and FERS........................................           1,385           2,044            2,044
    Peer panels...............................................             342             349              349
    Phytoremediation plant research (OH)......................  ..............  ...............             280
    Plant life science (MO)...................................  ..............  ...............             200
    PM-10 air quality study (WA)..............................             426  ...............             426
    Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research &                      480  ...............             480
     Extension Center (AL)....................................
    Produce pricing (AZ)......................................              76  ...............  ...............
    REE information system....................................           2,078           2,750            2,750
    Rural systems (MS)........................................  ..............  ...............             500
    Salmon quality standards (AK).............................             120  ...............             150
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC,TX)................           4,214  ...............           4,214
    Sustainable agriculture development (OH)..................             490  ...............  ...............
    Urban silviculture (NY)...................................             232  ...............  ...............
    Water quality (IL)........................................             341  ...............  ...............
    Water quality (ND)........................................             417  ...............             450
    Water pollutants (WV).....................................             206  ...............             706
    Wetland plants (WV).......................................             160  ...............  ...............
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, federal administration...........................          21,110           7,841           27,149
                                                               =================================================
      TOTAL, CSREES R & E.....................................         541,694         550,661          611,729
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Critical issue is now reflected in Integrated Activities.

    Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial 
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch 
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and 
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends 
maintaining Hatch Act funding at the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $119,471,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    The Committee is aware of the need for special research 
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand 
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural 
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition 
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be 
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a 
competitive basis.
    The Committee directs the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate on the feasibility of a 
competitive grants program that would be limited to current 
special research grant participants.
    Special Research Grants.--The Committee continues to 
support the objectives of the Special Research Grants program 
and recognizes the need to provide highly focused research on a 
timely basis. The Committee notes that many special research 
grants have continued to receive funding beyond the period of 
the originally proposed request and believes that long-term 
research activities should also seek opportunities from 
competitive sources in order to provide limited resources for 
new research priorities within the category of Special Research 
Grants. Accordingly, the Committee includes a provision that 
diverts a portion of funds for Special Research Grants that 
have received funding for a period or years and places that 
amount in an account to increase the sums available for 
research activities pursuant to the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems. The Committee encourages all 
recipients of Special Research Grants to prepare proposals and 
seek funding through this and other competitive research 
programs.
    Alternative milk policies.--The Committee that directs that 
of funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy 
Research Institute, $250,000 shall be provided for 
collaborative work between the University of Missouri and the 
University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an analysis of dairy 
policy changes, including trade related matters, and assist 
Congress in making policy decisions. This project will be a 
one-stop shop for Congressional requests for analysis of 
alternative dairy policies.
    Aquaculture centers.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000, 
an increase of $1,004,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level. Of 
the increase provided, the Committee recommends $575,000 for 
aquaculture research efforts at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and 
Environmental Research Institute.
    Technology transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to 
continue to support at the fiscal year 2002 level the cotton 
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
    Aquaculture (LA).--Of the amount provided for Aquaculture 
(LA), the Committee expects that $70,000 shall be used to 
initiate a multi-year program to conduct clinical epidemiologic 
research on diseases associated with intensive reptile disease 
research in Louisiana.
    Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $592,000 provided for 
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for 
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture 
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical 
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and 
Extension Center in Stoneville.
    Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to 
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are 
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds 
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato 
industry working group.
    Wood utilization research.--The Committee recommends 
$6,170,000 for wood utilization research. Of the increase 
provided, an additional $500,000 is made available for the 
Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research Center to conduct 
forest inventories.
    Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and provides funding of $163,986,000 for the program, an 
increase of $43,534,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level and 
$76,014,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee remains determined to see that quality 
research and enhanced human resources development in the 
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. 
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that not less 
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used 
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program 
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Alternative crops.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research 
efforts on canola, an increase of $76,000 from the fiscal year 
2002 level.
    Sustainable agriculture.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, an increase of 
$2,500,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Increased funds provided for sustainable agriculture 
research and education should include, but in no way be limited 
to, projects on organic agriculture. While organic production 
practices are included under the umbrella of sustainable 
agriculture, it is critical that funding increases be directed 
also to research on broader sustainable agriculture production 
systems and practices. The Committee also directs the 
Department to allocate a portion of funding increases to on-
farm demonstration and producer-research projects.
    Higher education.--The Committee recommends $15,331,000 for 
higher education. The Committee provides $2,993,000 for 
graduate fellowships; $4,340,000 for challenge grants; $998,000 
for multicultural scholarships; $3,500,000 for grants for 
Hispanic education partnership grants; and $3,500,000 for 
Alaska native-serving and native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
    The Committee notes that the Department's higher education 
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of 
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs 
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully 
in this program.
    Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 
Institutions education grants.--The Committee provides 
$3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible 
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska 
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between 
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee 
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds 
as authorized.
    Federal administration.--The Committee provides $27,069,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    Geographic information system program.--The Committee 
recommends $1,600,000, an increase of $401,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level, for the Geographic Information System Program. 
The Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made 
available for program activities of entities in the same areas 
as in 2001 on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected 
that program management costs will be kept at a minimum and any 
remaining funds will be distributed to the sites.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       7,100,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,100,000

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (31 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
Beginning with 2001, income funds are also available for 
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On 
the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal 
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of 
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted 
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these 
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being 
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the 
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the 
1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee recommends $7,100,000. This is the same as the 2002 
level and the budget request.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $439,473,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................     419,989,000
Committee recommendation................................     452,943,000

\1\ Excludes $1,046,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is 
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, 
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of 
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of 
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or 
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of 
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, 
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such 
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs, 
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the 
colleges.
    To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State 
and county extension offices in each State, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct 
educational programs to improve American agriculture and 
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $452,943,000. This amount is $13,470,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $32,954,000 more than the 
budget request. This amount includes an increase of $583,000 
for pay parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include 
an increase of $46,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the 
fiscal year 2002 and budget request levels:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    2002     Fiscal year     Committee
                                  enacted    2003 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c).....      275,940      275,940        284,218
Smith Lever 3(d):
    Farm safety...............        5,250        5,250          5,250
    Food and nutrition               58,566       58,566         58,566
     education (EFNEP)........
    Indian reservation agents.        1,996        1,996          1,996
    Pest management...........       10,759       10,759         10,759
    Rural development center..          953  ...........  ..............
    Sustainable agriculture...        4,750        3,792          5,000
    Youth at risk.............        8,481        8,481          8,481
    Youth farm safety                   499          499            499
     education and
     certification............
Renewable resources extension         4,093        4,093          4,093
 act..........................
1890s colleges and Tuskegee          31,181        3,181         32,117
 University...................
1890s facilities grants.......       13,500       13,500         15,000
Rural health and safety               2,622  ...........          2,622
 education....................
Extension services at 1994            3,273        3,273          3,500
 institutions.................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................      421,863      389,330        432,101
                               =========================================
Federal administration and
 special grants:
    General administration and        6,291        7,309          7,309
     pay......................
    Ag in the classroom.......          600          600            700
    Agricultural &              ...........  ...........            260
     entrepreneurship
     education (WI)...........
    Agricultural                        339  ...........  ..............
     telecommunications (NY)..
    Alabama beef connection...  ...........  ...........            200
    Avian conservation (PA)...          320  ...........  ..............
    Beef producers improvement          193  ...........            197
     (AR).....................
    Botanical garden                    237  ...........  ..............
     initiative (IL)..........
    Conservation technology             490  ...........            500
     transfer (WI)............
    Dairy education (IA)......          232  ...........            237
    Dairy industry              ...........  ...........            375
     revitalization (WI)......
    Diabetes detection,                 906  ...........            924
     prevention (WA)..........
    E-Commerce (MS)...........  ...........  ...........            750
    Efficient irrigation (NM,         1,960  ...........          1,960
     TX)......................
    Extension specialist (MS).          100  ...........            175
    Family farm beef industry         1,372  ...........  ..............
     network (OH).............
    Food animal residue                 800  ...........            800
     avoidance database/FARAD.
    Food preparation &          ...........  ...........            300
     marketing (AK)...........
    Food product development            280  ...........            500
     (AK).....................
    Health education                    800  ...........          1,000
     leadership (KY)..........
    Income enhancement                  241  ...........  ..............
     demonstration (OH).......
    Integrated cow/calf                 292  ...........  ..............
     management (IA)..........
    Iowa vitality center (IA).          280  ...........            280
    National Center for                 196  ...........            198
     Agriculture Safety (IA)..
    Pilot technology transfer           319  ...........            325
     (OK, MS).................
    Pilot technology transfer           160  ...........  ..............
     (WI).....................
    Potato pest management              396  ...........            400
     (WI).....................
    Range improvement (NM)....          240  ...........            249
    Rural development (AK)....          637  ...........            750
    Rural development (NM)....          363  ...........            395
    Rural Development (ND)....  ...........  ...........            183
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).          240  ...........  ..............
    Rural technologies (HI,     ...........  ...........          1,000
     WI)......................
    Urban horticulture (WI)...          200  ...........            875
    Wood biomass as                     193  ...........  ..............
     alternative farm product
     (NY).....................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, federal              18,697        7,909         20,842
       administration.........
                               =========================================
      Total, Extension              440,542      397,239        452,943
       activities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $700,000 for 
the Ag in the Classroom program. The Committee is aware of 
interest in expansion of the Illinois program in cooperation 
with the Illinois Farm Bureau.
    Farm safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,050,000 for the 
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the 
National Easter Seal Society.
    Pest management.--Included in the amount provided by the 
Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is 
continued funding at the fiscal year 2002 level for potato late 
blight control, including $400,000 for early disease 
identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and 
late blight research activities in Maine.
    Rural health and safety.--The Committee recommends 
$2,622,000, the same as the fiscal year 2002 level, for rural 
health and safety education. Included in this amount is 
$2,190,000 for the ongoing rural health program in Mississippi 
to train health care professionals to serve in rural areas, and 
$432,000 for the ongoing rural health and outreach initiative 
in Louisiana.
    Urban Horticulture.--The Committee provides $875,000 for 
urban horticulture activities in Wisconsin. Of this total, 
$600,000 is directed to the University of Wisconsin Extension, 
and $275,000 is directed to Growing Power of Milwaukee for 
community food systems.
    World Food and Health Center.--The Committee is aware of an 
effort to establish a World Food and Health Center at the 
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The Center will 
conduct and coordinate research, technology and information 
transfer, and educational programs related to malnutrition, 
food insecurity, and food safety. The Committee encourages the 
Department to provide appropriate technical assistance in the 
development of the Center.

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $42,853,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      44,865,000
Committee recommendation................................     108,218,000

    Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water 
Quality, Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers 
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or 
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well 
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional 
projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For integrated activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $108,218,000. This amount is $65,365,000 more than 
the 2002 level and $63,353,000 more than the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
                          INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    2002     Fiscal year     Committee
                                  enacted    2003 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Issues--Plant &                200          500            500
 Animal Diseases \1\..........
Rural Development Centers \1\.        1,513        1,513          1,513
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
International Science &         ...........        1,000  ..............
 Education Grants.............
Crops at Risk from FQPA:              1,497        1,497          1,497
 Implementation...............
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program          4,889        4,889          4,889
 for Major Food Crop Systems..
Methyl Bromide Transition             2,498        2,498          3,000
 Program......................
Organic Transition Program....        1,500          499          1,750
Agriculture Technologies......  ...........  ...........          2,600
Section 401 Activities........  ...........  ...........         60,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................       44,566       44,865        108,218
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Critical Issue SRGs and Rural Development Centers SRG and Smith-
  Lever 3(d) programs, previously shown under Research & Education
  Activities and/or Extension Activities, are now reflected in
  Integrated Activities.

    Organic transition program.--The organic transition program 
shall be administered by the Cooperative State, Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) in order to address 
all issues that are applicable to the transition process to 
certified organic production, including soil and crop 
fertility; marketing; weed, insect, and other pest management; 
and other issues.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $654,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         780,000
Committee recommendation................................         788,000

\1\ Excludes $17,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $788,000. This is $134,000 more than the 2002 level and 
$8,000 more than the budget request. This amount includes 
$26,000 for pay parity costs and benefits.
    The Committee is aware of the nutritional and economic 
benefits of farmers' market programs such as the WIC and Senior 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs, currently funded through 
the Food and Nutrition Service. These programs improve 
nutrition among low-income mothers, children and senior 
citizens by giving them access to locally grown fresh fruits 
and vegetables, as well as benefit the farmers who participate. 
The Committee directs the Under Secretary to work with the 
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
study the potential for a broad Farmers' Market Program within 
the Agricultural Marketing Service, which would provide funding 
for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, the Senior 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and the recently authorized 
Farmers' Market Promotion Program. The Committee requests a 
report on the the Department's analysis for program 
recommendations, including cost estimates, by March 1, 2003.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, APHIS
                                                           Appropriations     User fees \1\      appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \2\...............................       $535,677,000        $84,813,000       $620,490,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \3\..............................        767,119,000  .................        767,119,000
Committee recommendation...............................        735,673,000  .................        735,673,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct
  appropriation.
\2\ Excludes $105,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 107-117.
\3\ Excludes $15,108,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

    The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under 
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the 
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and 
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas 
of activity, as follows:
    Pest and disease exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection 
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control 
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic 
activities.
    Agricultural quarantine inspection (AQI).--The agency 
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and 
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127) provides that beginning in 2003, all AQI 
user fee collections will become available without the need for 
annual appropriations, and the program will operate like a 
typical user fee program, with spending determined by the 
demand for AQI services.
    Plant and animal health monitoring.--The Agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and disease management programs.--The Agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such 
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
Agency.
    Animal care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities 
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses 
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These 
activities include inspection of certain establishments that 
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, 
and monitoring certain horse shows.
    Scientific and technical services.--The Agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research to 
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of 
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and 
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of 
$735,673,000. This is $115,183,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and $31,446,000 less than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $16,564,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $26,709,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $277,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                                 Fiscal year      2003 budget       Committee
                                                                 2002 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine inspection.......................           47,254           69,591           64,188
    User fees................................................       \1\ 84,813          ( \2\ )
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, agricultural quarantine inspection...........          132,067           69,591           64,188
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Cattle ticks.............................................            6,232            6,498            6,354
    Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases..            3,839            8,010            7,989
    Import/export............................................            8,132           10,379            9,556
    Trade issues resolution and management...................           11,367           11,605           11,527
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................           36,818           62,963           64,924
    Screwworm................................................           30,557           30,795           30,679
    Tropical bunt tick.......................................              415              424              422
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease exclusion......................          229,427          200,265          195,639
                                                              ==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance................           70,931           93,786           93,526
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement...........            8,101            8,479            8,538
    Emergency Management System..............................            4,044           11,133           11,043
    Pest detection...........................................            6,844           26,933           26,880
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, plant and animal health monitoring..............           89,920          140,331          139,987
                                                              ==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
    Aquaculture..............................................            1,130              970            1,397
    Biocontrol...............................................            8,759            9,430            9,118
    Boll weevil..............................................           77,355           36,860           62,000
    Brucellosis eradication..................................            9,800            8,855           10,358
    Chronic wasting disease..................................  ...............            7,233           14,900
    Emerging plant pests.....................................       \3\ 39,515          129,483           69,415
    Golden nematode..........................................              810              658              630
    Grasshopper..............................................        \3\ 3,615            4,219            4,369
    Gypsy moth...............................................            4,559            4,838            4,677
    Imported fire ant........................................            2,868            2,232            3,000
    Johne's disease..........................................            3,000            3,122           21,000
    Noxious weeds............................................            1,255            1,182            1,611
    Pink bollworm............................................            1,866            1,732            1,666
    Plum pox.................................................  ...............            5,551            5,551
    Pseudorabies.............................................            4,151            4,379            4,286
    Scrapie eradication......................................            3,119           22,543            8,178
    Tuberculosis.............................................            8,694           19,816           14,895
    Wildlife services operations.............................           49,071           67,487           67,144
    Witchweed................................................            1,520            1,583            1,530
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease management.....................          221,087          332,173          305,725
                                                              ==================================================
Animal care:
    Animal welfare...........................................           15,167           14,580           16,408
    Horse protection.........................................              415              499              493
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, animal care.....................................           15,582           15,079           16,901
                                                              ==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
    Biotechnology/environmental protection...................           10,516           11,273           10,997
    Information technology infrastructure....................            1,748            4,602            4,602
    Plant methods development laboratories...................            5,118            5,607            5,373
    Veterinary biologics.....................................           11,763           13,436           13,167
    Veterinary diagnostics...................................           18,278           24,336           23,921
    Wildlife services methods development....................           12,955           15,914           15,258
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, scientific and technical services...............           60,378           75,168           73,318
                                                              ==================================================
Contingency fund.............................................            4,096            4,103            4,103
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, salaries and expenses...........................          620,490          767,119          735,743
                                                              ==================================================
Recap (salaries and expenses):
    Appropriated.............................................          535,677          767,119          735,743
    Agricultural quarantine inspection user fees.............           84,813  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and expenses...........................          620,490          767,119          735,673
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional AQI resources provided in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR)
  Act of 1996 direct appropriation.
\2\ Does not require a direct appropriation in fiscal year 2003 by operation of the FAIR Act of 1996.
\3\ Includes a transfer of $3,615,000 from the emerging plants pest account to the grasshopper account.

    The Committee is unable to provide the full increases 
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide 
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health 
programs. The Committee does not concur with the President's 
request to amend the Agriculture Risk Protection Act to prevent 
the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring funds from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to combat emergencies for plant 
pest or noxious weed infestations that the Commodity Credit 
Corporation funded the previous year. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to continue use of contingency funding from Commodity 
Credit Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover 
needs as identified in the President's budget and any 
additional emergencies as the Secretary determines necessary.

Pest and Disease Exclusion

    AQI.--For fiscal year 2003, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $64,188,000 for the AQI appropriated account. 
The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 above the 
budget request to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections 
of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for 
movement from the State of Hawaii to the continental United 
States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands.
    The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols 
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in 
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while 
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment 
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards 
of warm weather States.
    The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and 
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii 
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to 
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection 
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee also encourages the agency to 
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff 
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental 
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to 
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS 
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art 
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry, 
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned 
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous 
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
    The Committee urges APHIS to continue working closely with 
U.S. avocado growers to implement procedures for the 
importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to 
report on the status of Mexican avocado imports, including 
problems in pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel, and the 
diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved 
destinations. The Committee directs APHIS to include 
independent, third party scientists in the development of any 
pest risk assessment for Mexican avocados, prior to the 
publication of any such pest risk assessment in the Federal 
Register. The Committee also directs APHIS to report to 
Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the approved 
areas or lengthening time periods for the importation of 
Mexican avocados.
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection.--The Committee provides 
$64,924,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, 
which includes an increase of $23,258,000 to enhance 
international activities to prevent Medflies from moving into 
the United States, and an increase of $3,182,000 to enhance 
activities at U.S. borders.

Plant and animal health monitoring

    Animal health monitoring and surveillance.--The Committee 
provides $93,526,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and 
Surveillance account. The Committee provides continued funding 
of $750,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin 
Animal Health Consortium for ongoing activities related to 
animal and animal-based product tracking and database 
management. The Committee also provides continued funding of 
$500,000 for the National Farm Animal Identification and 
Records Project, and an increase of $300,000 for the New Mexico 
Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection 
and reporting system for infectious animal diseases. The 
Committee encourages APHIS to work with the Wisconsin Animal 
Health Consortium, the National Farm Animal Identification and 
Records Project, and the Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to 
ensure that program duplication does not occur, and to develop 
a coordinated, comprehensive plan for future activities. The 
Committee requests a report on the progress on the development 
of this plan by April 1, 2003.
    The Committee provides $100,000, an increase of $50,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level, to continue the cooperative 
agreement with the Murray State University, Breathitt 
Veterinary Center, Hopkinsville, KY, to determine the impact on 
animal health from common agricultural chemical usage.
    The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 toward the 
placement of alkaline digesters for destroying and disposing of 
animal carcasses suspected of transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy infection and other animal diseases. Of this 
amount, the Committee provides $750,000 for Auburn University 
College of Veterinary Medicine at the J.B. Taylor Diagnostic 
Laboratory in Elba, AL, and $250,000 for the Mississippi Animal 
Disease and Research Diagnostic Laboratory in Jackson, MS.
    The Committee is concerned about the recent avian influenza 
outbreak that has resulted in the destruction of poultry flocks 
in order to contain the disease. The Committee recommends that 
the Department implement a program to control and eradicate 
this disease, with inclusion of such a program in the 
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $160,000 for the animal and 
plant health regulatory enforcement account for additional 
activities in support of increased Animal Welfare Act 
compliance inspections.
    The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal 
dog fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work with 
relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means for 
investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding 
these activities. The Committee requests that the Secretary 
provide a report by March 1, 2003, on actions taken to address 
this matter.
    Emergency management systems.--The Committee provides 
$11,043,000 for the emergency management systems program. The 
Committee encourages APHIS to work with the North Carolina 
Department of Agriculture's Emergency Programs Division to 
establish a viable and effective disease surveillance and 
detection program for the prevention or rapid control of 
potential foreign animal diseases, plant pests, or similarly 
dangerous pathogens, toxins, and hazardous substances.
    Pest detection.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$175,000 above the budget request for the pest detection 
program for a baseline survey of pinewood nematode in Alaska to 
comply with phytosanitary export requirements necessary to 
export timber.

Pest and disease management

    Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,397,000 for the 
aquaculture program, an increase of $247,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 level. The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 level to expand telemetry and 
population dynamics studies to develop environmentally and 
economically sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage 
cormorant and pelican populations. The Committee also provides 
an increase of $150,000 to create, manage, and operate an 
Invasive Aquatic Species Program with the Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
    Boll weevil.--The Committee provides $62,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2003 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This 
funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a 
30 percent cost share and possible exceptions to address 
special funding requirements arising from extraordinary 
circumstances in some States.
    Brucellosis eradication.--The Committee provides $558,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level for the bruccellosis program. 
This amount continues funding of $750,000 for the State of 
Montana to protect the State's brucellosis-free status and for 
the operation of the bison quarantine facility and the testing 
of bison that surround Yellowstone National Park.
    The Committee provides $900,000, an increase of $300,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level, for the Greater Yellowstone 
Interagency Brucellosis Committee, and encourages the 
coordination of Federal, State, and private actions to 
eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone 
area. This amount shall be equally divided between the States 
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 for the 
Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission Brucellosis Program.
    Chronic wasting disease.--The Committee is very concerned 
about the escalating number of deer and elk in different 
regions of the U.S. testing positive for chronic wasting 
disease and provides $14,900,000, which is $7,667,000 above the 
budget request, to expand the chronic wasting disease 
certification and control program to include additional 
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging 
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely 
identification of the presence of this disease.
    The Committee is aware of the development of a rapid prion 
assay that would more effectively test for BSE in meat 
processing facilities and for Chronic Wasting Disease in the 
field for evaluating wild game. The Committee directs the 
Department to undertake a review of this testing technology 
and, if warranted, to move forward with a pilot program using 
this technology.
    Emerging plant pests.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $29,900,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level for emerging 
plant pests. Within this total, the Committee provides 
$9,000,000 for Pierce's disease; $8,000,000 for the Asian long-
horned beetle program in Illinois and New York, of which no 
less than $1,500,000 shall be for activities in the area of 
Chicago, IL; $10,000,000 for citrus canker; and $2,000,000 for 
sudden oak death syndrome. The Committee expects the Secretary 
to make funds available from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
for activities related to these and other plant pests in fiscal 
year 2003, as necessary.
    The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation 
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and 
facilities that Karnal Bunt impacts. However, the compensation 
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately 
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive 
deliveries of Karnal Bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate 
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate 
in activities to prevent the spread of Karnal Bunt in the 
United States. Due to the serious threat that Karnal Bunt poses 
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an 
adequate compensation plan, and to report back to the Committee 
on its recommendations and actions no later than March 1, 2003.
    The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative 
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture 
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The 
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents 
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and 
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the 
citrus longhorned beetle.
    Grasshopper.--The Committee provides $4,369,000 for the 
grasshopper account, an increase of $150,000 above the budget 
request. Of this amount, no less than $650,000 shall be for 
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah: 
$150,000 to prepare necessary environmental documents, and 
$500,000 to continue control measures; and no less than 
$300,000 shall be for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities 
in the State of Nevada, including survey, control, and 
eradication of crickets.
    Imported fire ant.--The Committee provides $3,000,000 for 
the imported fire ant account, $868,000 above the budget 
request, to continue sharing responsibility with the States to 
conduct detection and nursery surveys; compliance monitoring; 
enforcement for quarantine of nursery stock; and production, 
field release, and evaluation of promising control agents. This 
amount includes an increase of $260,000 to the State of 
Tennessee for additional control activities.
    Johne's disease.--The Committee provides $21,000,000 for 
Johne's disease, which is $17,946,000 above the budget request, 
to expand the agency's efforts to coordinate State 
certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide 
additional assistance to States to develop herd management 
plans that comply with APHIS's national standards for 
certification. The Committee expects APHIS to work with the 
Agricultural Research Service to coordinate activities to 
research and develop an effective diagnostic test for Johne's 
disease with appropriate field validation and methods 
development.
    Noxious weeds.--The Committee provides $1,611,000 for the 
noxious weeds account, which is an increase of $356,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 level. This amount includes an increase of 
$100,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the 
availability and distribution of biological control organisms 
used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee 
provides an increase of $250,000 for implementation of an 
invasive species program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in 
Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps 
to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation 
problem, and provide a report on those activities by March 1, 
2003.
    The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat 
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and 
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture 
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an 
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological 
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as 
necessary.
    Scrapie eradication.--The Committee provides $8,178,000, an 
increase of $5,059,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level, for 
the scrapie eradication program, and directs the Secretary to 
use funds from the CCC, as necessary, for additional 
eradication activities in fiscal year 2003.
    Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $14,895,000 for the 
tuberculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000 
shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned 
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for 
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the 
agency to increase technical and operational assistance to 
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of 
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also 
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing 
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and 
livestock. The Committee directs the Secretary to use funds 
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and 
eradication activities in fiscal year 2003.
    Wildlife services operations.--The Committee does not 
concur with the President's request to reduce funding in the 
wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to 
assume a larger share of the costs associated with preventing 
and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee restores fiscal 
year 2002 funding to continue cooperating with States to 
conduct wildlife management programs such as livestock 
protection, migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species 
damage, property damage, human health and safety, and 
threatened and endangered species protection.
    The Committee is pleased with the success of the oral 
rabies vaccination program and provides an increase of 
$6,600,000 for rabies control activities in fiscal year 2003. 
The Committee directs the Secretary to use funds from the CCC, 
as necessary, for additional control activities in fiscal year 
2003. Of the amount provided, no less than $350,000 shall be 
for operations in Maryland.
    The Committee provides an increase of $1,636,000 to fully 
implement the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Review 
Committee.
    The Committee provides an increase of $6,225,000 to conduct 
wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities to prevent the 
spread of foreign animal diseases in the United States. Of this 
amount, $2,000,000 is for remote diagnostic and wildlife 
disease surveillance activities with North Dakota State 
University and Dickinson State University.
    The Committee is concerned about the growing number of 
livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals, 
especially wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest 
regions of the United States. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,400,000 for integrated predation management 
activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and New 
Mexico. Of this amount, no less than $1,200,000 shall be 
available for activities in the Western Great Lakes States.
    The Committee provides continued funding of $1,300,000 for 
the Tri-state predator control program for livestock operators 
in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the increase in 
federally listed endangered species, the States' operations 
accounts for wildlife services have suffered financially.
    The Committee provides continued funding of $625,000 for a 
cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia, Auburn 
University, and the Wildlife Services Operations in the State 
of Georgia to address the fluctuations in game bird and 
predator species resulting from recent changes in land use 
throughout the southeastern United States.
    The Committee provides continued funding of $300,000 for 
the operation of the State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii 
to provide on-site coordination of prevention and control 
activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The Committee 
also continues funding of $500,000 for the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture to coordinate and operate a comprehensive brown 
tree snake prevention and detection program for Hawaii and to 
initiate eradication and control of coqui frogs.
    The Committee provides $750,000, an increase of $150,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 funding level, for wildlife service 
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory, 
nuisance, and diseased animals.
    The Committee provides $550,000, an increase of $100,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 level, for the management of beavers 
in Mississippi. The Committee commends the agency's assistance 
in cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to 
reduce beaver damage to cropland and forests.
    The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 to support 
the establishment of a USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services State 
Office in Pennsylvania to address escalating wildlife-related 
nuisance and property damage complaints in rural and urban 
Pennsylvania.
    The Committee provided $240,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the 
agency to conduct an environmental impact study for cattail 
management and blackbird control activities. The Committee 
provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2002 level of 
$240,000 to implement control measures for minimizing blackbird 
damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South Dakota. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2002 funding level of 
$150,000 for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.
    The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to assist 
the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning displaced 
wildlife back to its natural habitat. This rescue initiative 
shall be a cooperative effort between Federal, State, local, 
and private sources.
    The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for a 
cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho Sandhill Crane 
Lure Crop Project for integrated predator management activities 
to reduce sandhill crane depredations and grain crop damage in 
Eastern Idaho.

Animal Care

    Animal welfare.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$800,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level for the Animal 
Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
    The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized 
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the 
President's budget.

Scientific and Technical Services

    Veterinary diagnostics.--The Committee provides $23,921,000 
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2003. 
The Committee notes that the Secretary is utilizing $10,000,000 
from Public Law 107-117 to coordinate a comprehensive, 
modernized national animal health laboratory network for 
addressing emergent biological and chemical threats to animal 
agriculture and the U.S. food supply, and encourages the 
department to continue efforts for this activity.
    Wildlife services methods development.--The Committee 
provides $15,258,000 for wildlife services methods development, 
which is $1,836,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, 
the Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level to enhance existing research efforts at the 
National Wildlife Research Center field station in Starkville, 
MS, for resolving problems regarding bird damage to aquaculture 
farms in the Southeast. The Committee also provides an increase 
of $700,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level to expand the 
existing program at the Jack Berryman Institute for addressing 
wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and 
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi 
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The remaining 
increase, beyond pay costs, is for maintenance and operations 
necessary to support wildlife methods development at the 
National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, CO.
    The Committee provides continued funding of $240,000 for 
the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture Research 
Center for rodent control only in active agricultural areas.
    Projects identified in Senate Report 107-41 and Conference 
Report 107-275 that the Committee directed to be funded for 
fiscal year 2002 are not funded for fiscal year 2003 unless 
specifically mentioned herein.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee 
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and 
activities without prior notification to and approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................      $7,189,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      13,189,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,189,000

\1\ Excludes $14,081,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 107-117.

    The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities'' 
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of 
specific program activities and recurring construction, 
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing 
APHIS facilities.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2002 and budget request levels:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2002  Fiscal year 2003      Committee
                                                                 enacted       budget request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and               1,996             4,996             4,996
 preventative maintenance.................................
Plum Island, NY...........................................            3,193             3,193             3,193
Miami Animal Import Center, FL............................            2,000             5,000             5,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.....................            7,189            13,189            13,189
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $13,189,000. This amount is $6,000,000 more than the 2002 
level and the same as the budget request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $71,430,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      75,411,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,824,000

\1\ Excludes $2,278,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the 
Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out 
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities, 
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the 
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s); 
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and 
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
    Programs administered by this Agency include the market 
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the 
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of 
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, 
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation 
services, and market protection and promotion.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$75,824,000. This amount is $4,394,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and $413,000 more than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $1,546,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $709,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $167,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee provides $14,843,000 for the Pesticide Data 
Program, as requested in the budget. The Committee recognizes 
the importance of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to collect 
reliable, scientific-based pesticide residue data that benefits 
consumers, food processors, crop protection, pesticide 
producers, and farmers. The PDP is of particular importance 
since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, which 
requires thorough re-evaluation of agricultural pesticides and 
tolerances for uses on individual crops. The PDP is an 
effective tool to maintain the availability of critical 
products which allow the production of safe and affordable 
foods.
    The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to 
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing 
organizations to promote wild salmon.
    The Committee provides $6,000,000 for costs associated with 
implementing the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 
1999.
    The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program 
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and 
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and 
expects the Department again to give full consideration to 
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, 
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood 
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should 
coordinate with other regional marketing entities such as the 
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation and the Lower Kuskokwim 
Economic Development Council.
    The amount provided also includes $6,256,000 for the 
microbiological data program so that baselines may be 
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne 
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with 
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the 
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to 
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested 
parties.
    The Committee is aware of the unique factors that affect 
dairy production in Alaska. Because of these factors, only 51 
percent of Alaska's dairy needs can be produced in-State. 
Further, because of the perishable nature of milk and the cost 
to ship it, alternatives to increase milk production at 
Alaska's existing State-owned facility, Matanuska Maid Dairy, 
must be sought. Therefore, the Committee expects AMS, working 
with other USDA agencies, to continue its assistance to the 
State of Alaska in addressing this unique problem.
    The Committee requests a report on the treatment of organic 
agricultural products under Federal marketing order 
regulations.
    The Committee is concerned with the allocation of 
independent voting members on the Cranberry Marketing Committee 
and encourages the Secretary, beginning with the 2003 
nominations, to allocate independent voting members seats on 
the Cranberry Marketing Committee in manner that provides for 
representation by District to the total Independent Cranberry 
crop. Districts may be combined in order to obtain this result. 
Allocation of Alternate Voting members should be utilized to 
guarantee that each District will have at a minimum an 
Alternate Member as a representative of the Committee.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2002........................................   ($60,596,000)
Budget limitation, 2003 \1\.............................    (61,619,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (61,619,000)

\1\ Excludes $1,836,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading 
and classing tobacco, cotton, naval stores, and for warehouse 
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton 
Standards Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores 
Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are 
designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in 
the industry.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $61,619,000. 
This amount is $1,023,000 more than the 2002 funding level and 
the same as the budget request.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                    MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $13,995,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................  \1\ 14,910,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,910,000

\1\ Excludes $575,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts 
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused 
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption 
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is 
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers 
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition 
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2001-2003:

         SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2001-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2001 actual       2002 estimate      2003 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)..........    $5,738,448,921      $6,139,942,369    $5,798,093,321
Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106-224)...       200,000,000  ..................  ................
    Less Rescission.....................................  ................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service..........................    -5,127,579,000      -5,172,458,000    -4,745,663,000
    Commerce Department.................................       -72,827,819         -79,126,813       -75,223,977
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers..................................    -5,200,406,819      -5,251,584,813    -4,820,886,977
                                                         =======================================================
Budget Authority........................................       738,042,102         888,357,556       977,206,344
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year............       241,269,708         107,824,527       164,011,656
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations....................         3,254,060  ..................  ................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation................................       982,565,870         996,182,083     1,141,218,000
                                                         =======================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Purchases.......................       400,000,000         400,000,000       400,000,000
        State Option Contract...........................  ................           5,000,000  ................
        Removal of Defective Commodities................  ................           1,000,000  ................
        Emergency Surplus Removal.......................       200,234,102          78,201,437  ................
        Diversion Payments..............................        11,900,000  ..................  ................
        Direct Payments.................................        39,700,000          17,867,307  ................
        Lamb Grading and Certification Support..........           957,317           1,542,683  ................
        Disaster Relief.................................  ................  ..................  ................
        Specialty Crop Purchases........................       199,990,628  ..................  ................
        Estimated Future Purchases......................  ................         168,661,656       415,575,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity Procurement..................       852,782,047         672,273,083       815,575,000
                                                         =======================================================
    Administrative Funds:
        Commodity Purchase Service......................         8,964,131           9,914,000        10,733,000
        Marketing Agreements & Orders...................        12,995,165          13,995,000        14,910,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative Funds...................        21,959,296          23,909,000        25,643,000
                                                         =======================================================
          Total, Obligations............................       874,741,343         696,182,083       841,218,000
                                                         =======================================================
Carryout................................................       107,824,527         300,000,000       300,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year..............       107,824,527         300,000,000       300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $14,910,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $915,000 more 
than the 2002 level and the same as the budget estimate.
    In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent 
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The 
Committee expects the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to 
continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, 
salmon nuggets, and pouched salmon and determine whether or not 
there is a surplus and continued low prices in fiscal year 
2003. The Committee also expects the AMS to assess existing 
inventories of surplus Alaska grown potatoes. If there is a 
surplus of potatoes or a surplus of salmon and continued low 
prices in fiscal year 2003, the Committee expects the 
Department to purchase surplus salmon for use in the 
aforementioned feeding programs or for humanitarian food aid.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $1,347,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,347,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State 
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides 
$1,347,000. This amount is the same as the 2002 appropriation 
and the budget request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $33,117,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      41,164,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,746,000

\1\ Excludes $1,744,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers 
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $44,746,000. This amount is $11,629,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $3,582,000 more than the budget 
request.
    This amount includes an increase of $1,004,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $1,418,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $41,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for market contract catalog 
reporting activities. Additional increases are provided to 
enhance concentration and other anti-competitve investigative 
activities.
    The Committee does not assume the $28,848,000 in net 
savings from collections from new user fees proposed in the 
budget.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue the market 
catalog reporting.
    The Committee provides an increase to GIPSA of $2,311,000 
for fiscal year 2003 and includes funds for the agency to work 
with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the Iowa Department 
of Agriculture to further develop a pilot process verification 
program. The program will establish agricultural interpretation 
of ISO standards, so that the principles can be used on-farm as 
well as train farmers to participate in quality assurance 
program based on ISO 9000 principles during the planning, 
planting, harvest, and handling of feed grains. The program 
could also be used to assist with the orderly handling of new 
biotech varieties.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2002........................................   ($42,463,000)
Budget limitation, 2003.................................    (42,463,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (42,463,000)

    The Agency provides an official grain inspection and 
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and 
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under 
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was 
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund 
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and 
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing 
activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the 2002 level and the budget request.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $476,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         780,000
Committee recommendation................................         785,000

\1\ Excludes $17,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $785,000. This amount 
is $309,000 more than the 2002 level and $5,000 more than the 
budget request. This amount includes an increase of $18,000 for 
pay parity costs and benefits.
    The Committee is encouraged by the progress FDA and USDA 
have made in evaluating the risk of listeriosis in ready to eat 
products and in developing a plan for the reduction of risk 
through science-based policy. The Committee strongly urges the 
FDA and USDA to complete the listeria risk assessment and begin 
work on revising the listeria action plan. The Committee 
directs the FDA and USDA to rely on public health principles 
and the best available science in their policy development 
process.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................    $715,642,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\...............................     763,049,000
Committee recommendation................................     766,608,000

\1\ Excludes $15,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $40,549,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $766,608,000. This amount is 
$50,966,000 more than the 2002 level and $3,559,000 more than 
the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $2,031,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $7,256,000 for rental payments to GSA, or 
$1,035,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the 
budget.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $97,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level for activities related to the 
Codex Alimentarius.
    The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for FSIS 
to hire inspection personnel to work solely on enforcement of 
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The Committee is 
extremely concerned that although the HMSA requires that 
livestock be rendered unconscious before they are slaughtered, 
FSIS does not have adequate inspection personnel dedicated to 
checking for or reporting violations of the HMSA. The Committee 
recognizes that all inspectors are instructed to stop the 
production line as soon as an HMSA violation is observed. 
However, the Committee does not believe this is the most 
effective and efficient tool to prevent these violations. The 
Committee strongly believes that stronger HMSA enforcement will 
not only reduce animal suffering, but also decrease the chances 
that plant workers and inspection personnel will be injured by 
an animal conscious and reacting to pain. Therefore, the 
Committee directs that these funds be used to hire at least 50 
additional inspection personnel to work solely on HMSA 
enforcement through full-time ante-mortem inspection, 
particularly unloading, handling, stunning and killing of 
animals at slaughter plants. The Committee further expects that 
the 17 District Veterinary Medical Specialist positions created 
in fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee is aware that FSIS uses two methods to 
determine whether the inspection systems of foreign countries 
that sell meat and poultry to the United States meet the same 
standards as our domestic meat inspection system. These methods 
include USDA audits of foreign plants and laboratories, and 
USDA inspection of foreign meat and poultry at the U.S. border. 
While all meat and poultry items which cross the border are 
subject to inspection, the Committee understands that less than 
1 percent of all such food items are currently inspected. The 
Committee believes that both of these activities need to be 
enhanced in order to protect consumers from intentionally or 
unintentionally contaminated foreign meat and poultry, and 
supplemental funds were provided in fiscal year 2002 to enhance 
these activities. Accordingly, when a significant number of 
plants initially audited in a particular country fail to meet 
U.S. safety standards, the Committee expects the Department to 
exercise all authorities to appropriately limit imports from 
all plants in that country that have not been audited in the 
previous 12 months, as well as imports from those plants that 
failed initial audits until subsequent findings establish that 
proper inspection systems are in place.
    The Committee is extremely concerned with recent reports of 
food safety violations and the quantity of product recalls 
necessary to ensure public safety and consumer confidence. As 
the Federal agency charged with ensuring the safety of meat and 
poultry in this country, the Committee fully expects FSIS to 
stringently enforce its safety standards, and to work with 
industry to diligently fulfill its responsibilities to American 
consumers. The Committee notes that the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) is preparing to release a report regarding FSIS 
and its inspection services, and strongly encourages FSIS to 
promptly and fully respond to recommendations made in that 
report. The Committee directs FSIS to provide a detailed report 
to the Committee within 60 days of the publication of the GAO 
report on the FSIS response, and all activities FSIS is 
undertaking to correct any problems identified.
    The Committee directs FSIS to submit a report on the status 
of its regulatory effort to establish science-based performance 
standards for on-line antimicrobial reprocessing of pre-chill 
poultry carcasses, including a timeline for completion, within 
60 days of enactment of this Act.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year
                                                                 2002 enacted     2003 budget       Committee
                                                                     \1\          request \2\     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal food inspection......................................          608,730          651,816          655,017
Import/export inspection.....................................           12,127           12,907           12,873
Laboratory services..........................................           36,548           38,829           38,735
Field automation.............................................            8,005            8,005            8,005
Grants to States.............................................           42,517           43,672           44,166
Special assistance for State programs........................            5,220            5,220            5,220
Codex Alimentarius...........................................            2,495            2,600            2,592
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          715,642          763,049          766,608
                                                              ==================================================
Food safety inspection:
    Federal..................................................          638,513          682,624          685,650
    State....................................................           47,418           49,702           50,251
    International............................................           15,344           16,251           16,243
Codex........................................................            2,495            2,600            2,592
FAIM.........................................................           11,872           11,872           11,872
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          715,642          763,049          766,608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $15,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $40,549,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $606,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         899,000
Committee recommendation................................         906,000

\1\ Excludes $24,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $906,000. This amount is $300,000 more than 
the 2002 appropriation and $7,000 more than the budget request. 
This amount includes an increase of $23,000 for pay parity 
costs and benefits.
    The Committee is concerned that allocation of section 416 
funds for humanitarian assistance programs may disadvantage 
certain private voluntary organizations in regard to the amount 
of those funds allowable for administrative costs. In addition, 
the Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with 
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified 
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
    The Committee urges USAID and USDA to manage the Food 
Security Commodity Reserve effectively to meet international 
food aid commitments of the United States, including 
supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet emergency 
food needs.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the 
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers 
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs 
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse 
examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], 
and several other cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and 
operating, and emergency disaster and other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the 
Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the 
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production 
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant's 
prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well 
as total program participation, each contract participant 
shares a portion of a statutorily specified, annual dollar 
amount. In return, participants must comply with certain 
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection, 
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for 
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, 
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production 
adjustment requirements or related provisions, except for 
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
    Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, 
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 act provides for 
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract 
commodities, extra long staple [ELS] cotton, and oilseeds for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, 
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment 
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus 
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. However, with 
respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary must allow repayment 
of marketing loans at the adjusted world price. And, 
specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance 
loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the 
lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest, 
or the adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness 
provisions are unchanged.
    The 1996 act also provides for a loan program for sugar for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane. The 
Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act eliminated the 
recourse feature. The 1996 act provides for a milk price 
support program, whereby the price of milk is supported through 
December 31, 1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat 
dry milk. The rate of support is fixed each calendar year, 
starting at $10.35 per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each 
year to $9.90 per hundredweight in 1999. The milk price support 
program is extended through May 31, 2002. The 1996 act and the 
1938 act provide for a peanut loan and poundage quota program 
for the 1996 through 2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the 
Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 act), and the 1938 
act provide for a price support, quota, and allotment program 
for tobacco.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than 
CCC's cost of money for that month.
    The 1996 act amended the payment limitation provisions in 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act), by 
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for 
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment 
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000 
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan 
gains (MLG's) and loan deficiency payments (LDP's) for all 
commodities that was in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop 
years continues through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the 
three-entity rule is continued.
    For combined MLG's plus LDP's received for the 1999, 2000, 
and 2001 crops, the payment limit was increased to $150,000 per 
person in separate pieces of legislation. Moreover, Congress 
enacted discretionary authority in 1999 for the Secretary of 
Agriculture to offer commodity certificate exchanges for loan 
repayment purposes. Indirect gains received by producers due to 
a certificate exchange are not subject to the MLG and LDP 
payment limitation.
    Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various 
price support and related programs have been authorized in 
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's. 
Operations under these programs are financed through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the 
Farm Service Agency are utilized in the administration of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the 
Agency is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
    The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address 
high-priority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC 
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of 
the programs financed through CCC.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to specific statutory authorizations and 
directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480.
    Farm credit programs.--FSA reviews applications, makes and 
collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance 
to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs 
associated with agricultural credit insurance fund [ACIF] loans 
are appropriated to the ACIF program account and transferred to 
FSA salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--FSA administers the noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP] which provides crop loss 
protection for growers of many crops for which crop insurance 
is not available.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, FSA,
                                                          Appropriations     Transfers from      salaries and
                                                                            program accounts       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002...................................           939,030          (274,357)         (1,213,387)
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\..............................           993,620          (281,036)         (1,274,656)
Committee recommendation...............................           997,378          (281,036)         (1,278,414)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $69,092,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

    The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,'' 
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and 
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of 
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit 
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit 
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances 
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are 
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides 
clarity and better management and control of funds, and 
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and 
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and 
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], 
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the 
Committee recommends $1,278,414,000. This is $65,027,000 more 
than the 2002 level and $3,758,000 more than the budget 
request.
    This amount includes an increase of $39,193,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $16,882,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $110,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget. 
The Committee includes funds to assist agency implementation of 
the newly enacted farm bill.
    The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under 
to downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised 
about the criteria being used for further staff reductions and 
the potential impact these reductions will have on farm 
services in all States. Until these concerns have been 
addressed, States in compliance with the original Espy 
reorganization plan should not be required to undertake further 
staff reductions.
    The Committee is concerned that FSA should allocate more 
staff resources to the farm loan programs in both the field and 
in the St. Louis Information Technology and Finance Center. 
Without more farm loan staff in the field, FSA cannot 
adequately perform the supervised credit functions which ensure 
the success of the program, including but not limited to such 
functions as real estate appraisals, chattel appraisals, and 
year-end farm analysis. The Committee directs the Department to 
report on the numbers of staff positions, by type and location, 
and to provide a detailed explanation by object class, of funds 
obligated from the Salaries & Expenses Account, to support the 
farm loan programs by April 1, 2003.
    The Committee supports farmer participation in the 
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) as a means to 
coordinate conservation and producer objectives of natural 
resource stewardship. The Committee encourages the Department, 
acting through the Farm Service Agency, to improve outreach and 
technical assistance for CREP in States where enrollment and 
participation is not commensurate with enrollment expectations.
    The Committee is concerned with the reluctancy on the part 
of the Agency to grant producers relief from farm program fines 
or penalties who unintentionally violated program rules. The 
Committee expects the Department to exercise the authorities 
granted in current law to provide appropriate relief in 
determining penalties in cases involving unintentional 
violations.
    In addition, the Committee notes the difficulty of States 
with high land values competing for enrollment in CREP. The 
Committee urges the agency to evaluate the conservation of 
benefits of CREP enrollment in all States and not give undue 
consideration to enrollment opportunities based on land values 
or rental rates.
    The Committee is concerned that many county governments are 
given the responsibility of implementing the Conservation 
Reserve Enhancement Program. The Committee encourages the Farm 
Service Agency to work with participating States that use 
counties as the local administering unit to ensure counties are 
fairly reimbursed for the costs associated with CREP 
implementation.
    The Committee encourages for Agency to examine the 
possibility to cost-sharing through existing conservation 
program types of cover (including plastic mulch) that would 
promote the successful establishment of tree shrub and other 
prescribed plantings used for wind erosion practices.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $3,493,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for State mediation 
grants. This is $507,000 more than the 2002 level and the same 
as the budget request.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         100,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends 
$100,000. This is the same as the 2002 level and the same as 
the budget request.
    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and 
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types 
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, 
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The 
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an 
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a 
specified initial period.
    FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to 
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having 
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The following programs are financed through this fund:
    Farm ownership loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $759,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40 
years or less.
    Farm operating loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $759,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan 
varies from 1 to 7 years.
    Emergency disaster loans.--Made available in designated 
areas (counties) and in contiguous counties where property 
damage and/or severe production losses have occurred as a 
direct result of a natural disaster. Areas may be declared by 
the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by 
the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.
    Credit sales of acquired property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 
loans.
    Indian tribe land acquisition loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire 
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or 
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the 
members thereof.
    Boll weevil eradication loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of 
$4,065,725,000. This is $175,000,000 more than the 2002 level 
and $263,725,000 more than the budget request.
    The following table reflects the program levels for farm 
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2002 and the budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2002 enacted     2003 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct...................................................        (146,996)        (100,000)        (146,996)
    Guaranteed...............................................      (1,000,000)      (1,000,000)      (1,000,000)
Farm operating:
    Direct...................................................        (611,198)        (600,000)        (611,198)
    Guaranteed unsubsidized..................................      (1,500,000)      (1,700,000)      (1,700,000)
    Guaranteed subsidized....................................        (505,531)        (300,000)        (505,531)
Indian tribe land acquisition................................          (2,000)          (2,000)          (2,000)
Emergency disaster...........................................         (25,000)  ...............  ...............
Boll weevil eradication loans................................        (100,000)        (100,000)        (100,000)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans......................................      (3,890,725)      (3,802,000)      (4,065,725)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                         Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Insured     Guaranteed                               Transfer to
                                     loan         loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA       Total ACIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002...........       61,927      125,700      187,627          8,000       272,595      468,222
Budget estimate, 2003..........      115,349       96,790      212,139          8,000       279,176      499,315
Committee recommendation.......      117,993      108,769      243,781          8,000       279,176      513,938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                   2002 enacted     2003 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct..................................................           3,866          11,610          17,066
        Guaranteed..............................................           4,500           7,500           7,500
    Farm operating:
        Direct..................................................          54,580         103,560         105,493
        Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................          52,650          53,890          53,890
        Guaranteed subsidized...................................          68,550          35,400          59,653
    Indian tribe land acquisition...............................             118             179             179
    Emergency disaster..........................................           3,363  ..............  ..............
    Boll weevil eradication loans \1\...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies...................................         187,627         212,139         243,781
ACIF expenses...................................................         280,595         287,176         287,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No cost since subsidy rate is negative.

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $74,752,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      72,771,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,228,000

\1\ Excludes $3,291,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Risk Management Agency performs administrative 
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that 
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
2000 (ARPA), Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
    ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance 
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for 
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands 
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and 
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are: 
research and development; insurance services; and compliance, 
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and 
regulations development.
    The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program 
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation 
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) pilot program, which 
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional 
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act 
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of 
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at 
fixed intervals.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk 
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$71,228,000. This is $3,524,000 less than the 2002 level and 
$1,543,000 less than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $1,952,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $2,045,000 for rental payments to GSA, or $18,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee does not agree with the President's 
legislative proposal to cap the underwriting gain on crop 
insurance at 12.5 percent. As opposed to an arbitrary change in 
legislation, the Committee feels that the Administration should 
follow the procedures set forth in the current Standard 
Reinsurance Agreement. Notice of intent to cancel the current 
agreement should be given by December 13, 2002, and all 
interested parties should then be allowed to negotiate a new 
agreement.
    The Risk Management Agency is currently developing a Cost 
of Production (COP) crop insurance pilot program that includes 
12 crops: almonds, apricots, cotton, corn, cranberries, 
nectarines, onions, peaches, soybeans, sugarcane, rice, and 
wheat. The Committee instructs RMA to include hard, soft, and 
durum sub-classes of wheat when implementing the COP pilot 
program for wheat.
    The Committee is aware of the benefits to producers of risk 
management programs like the Dairy Options Pilot Program. The 
program introduces dairy farmers to the futures and options 
markets and gives producers first-hand experience in buying put 
options contracts to ensure a minimum price for their milk. The 
Committee encourages the Agency to continue funding this 
important risk management program.

                              CORPORATIONS


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed 
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc 
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance 
program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy. At least 
catastrophic [CAT] coverage was required for producers who 
participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain 
other farm programs. Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are offered the option 
of waiving their eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance 
instead of obtaining CAT coverage to meet program requirements. 
Emergency loss assistance does not include emergency loans or 
payment under the Noninsured Assistance Program [NAP]. 
Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began phasing out 
delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices, and in 1998 
designated the private insurance providers as the sole source 
provider of CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies 
for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage for coverage up to 65 
percent level at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or 
greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount 
is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 
50 percent yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected 
market price.
    The reform legislation included the NAP program for 
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance 
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of 
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop 
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad 
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was 
implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management, 
under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program will remain with 
the Farm Service Agency and be incorporated into the Commodity 
Credit Corporation program activities.
    The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) amended 
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more 
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and 
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows 
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by 
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage 
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual 
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative 
fees for catastrophic (CAT) coverage. More crops and 
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs 
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an 
investment for over $8.2 billion in five years to further 
improve Federal crop insurance.

                FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................  $2,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\ \2\...........................   2,886,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................   2,886,165,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available 
until expended, are provided.
\2\ Does not include a reduction of $115,154,000 to reflect the impact 
of proposed Section 722.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of 
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 
delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as 
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public 
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
    All program costs, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, estimated to be $2,886,165,000. This is $13,885,000 
less than the current fiscal year 2002 estimate and $165,000 
more than the budget request.

                   COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Corporation activities are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 
Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the 
1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 
Act); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.
    Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a 
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend 
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and 
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for 
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A 
national Dairy Market Loss Payment (DMLP) program is 
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter 
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk 
price support program is also provided to support the price of 
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
    The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar 
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan 
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse 
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18 
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for 
refined beet sugar.
    In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands 
the conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve 
program (WRP), the environmental quality incentives program 
(EQIP), the farmland protection program (FPP), and the wildlife 
habitat incentives program (WHIP). Each of these programs is 
funded through the CCC.
    The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for 
other conservation programs, including the conservation 
security program and the grassland reserve program.
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by 
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may 
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending 
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation 
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to 
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing 
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes, 
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation 
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $20,279,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................  16,285,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................  16,285,000,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) for net realized losses, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, 
estimated in fiscal year 2003 to be $16,285,000,000. This is 
$3,994,000,000 less than the current estimated level and the 
same as the budget request.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2002........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste 
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. 
This amount is the same as the 2002 level and the budget 
request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $730,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         902,000
Committee recommendation................................         911,000

\1\ Excludes $21,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$911,000. This amount is $181,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation and $9,000 more than the budget request. This 
amount includes an increase of $29,000 for pay parity costs and 
benefits.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was 
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS 
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation 
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this 
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs 
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been 
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service works with conservation districts, 
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having 
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in 
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide 
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce 
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams, 
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical 
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the 
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and, 
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize 
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water 
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the 
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our 
cities.
    The conservation activities of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and 
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program 
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the 
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public 
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are 
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related 
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing 
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies, 
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages, 
improving range condition, and improving water quality.

                        conservation operations

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $779,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................     840,963,000
Committee recommendation................................     846,963,000

\1\ Excludes $56,227,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46 
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
    Conservation technical assistance.--Provides assistance to 
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and 
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and 
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and 
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve 
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and 
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the 
natural resource base.
    Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related 
resource data for land conservation, use, and development; 
guidance of community development; identification of prime 
agricultural producing areas that should be protected; 
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of 
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
    Resource appraisal and program development ensures that 
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall 
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
    Soil surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil 
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation 
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include 
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, 
State, and local organizations.
    Snow survey and water forecasting.--Provides estimates of 
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and 
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. 
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in 
estimating future water supplies.
    Plant materials centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages 
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in 
the treatment of conservation problem areas.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $846,963,000. This amount is $69,963,000 more 
than the 2002 level and $6,000,000 more than the budget 
request.
    This amount includes an increase of $25,825,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $18,289,000 for rental payments to GSA or $189,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation 
activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific 
conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise 
made available to States.
    Projects identified in Senate Report 107-41 and Conference 
Report 107-275 that were directed to be funded by the Committee 
for fiscal year 2002 are not funded for fiscal year 2003, 
unless specifically mentioned herein.
    The Committee is aware of the severe water problems 
occurring in the State of Georgia, especially in the Flint 
River watershed in Southwest Georgia and the coastal watershed 
in Southeast Georgia. Surface and ground water are being 
severely depleted by drought and further exacerbated by salt 
water intrusion into coastal agriculture areas. The Committee 
provides $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 funding for the Georgia 
Agricultural Water Conservation Initiative.
    The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national 
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in the delta of 
the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for fiscal year 2003 for a 
study to characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-
site impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use 
change while preserving critical natural resources. The agency 
is directed to work in cooperation with Clemson University in 
conducting this study.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding to expand the cooperative efforts with the Claude E. 
Phillips Herbarium, Delaware.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding to maintain a partnership between USDA and the National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue work on the 
Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion sediment 
control.
    The Committee provides $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2003 
level for the grazing lands conservation assistance program, of 
which no less than $250,000 shall be for grazing land 
conservation activities in Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for the National Water Management Center in Arkansas.
    The Comittee provides the fiscal year 2002 level for the 
Chesapeake Bay Program.
    The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat 
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests into Hawaii. The Committee directs the agency 
to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the 
Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service to develop an 
integrated approach, including environmentally-safe biological 
controls, for eradicating these pests.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to obtain and evaluate 
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52 
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the 
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The 
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction 
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2002 
level of funding for plant material centers and continued 
development of warm season grasses for use in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Initiatives 
Program (WHIP).
    The Committee encourages the agency to provide $300,000 to 
support the emerging alternative technology to reduce 
phosphorous loading into Lake Champlain.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding to continue support of agricultural development and 
resource conservation on the Island of Molokai and the 
transition from small-scale conservation projects to those that 
benefit the community through sustainable economic impact.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level for the 
Kenai streambank restoration water project for fiscal year 
2003.
    The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach 
effort so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers 
in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural 
resources. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program. 
Sound economic grazing systems, marketing strategies, and 
uniformity of production quality will ensure the 
competitiveness of livestock operations and help maintain small 
farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock 
producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for technical assistance for Franklin County Lake, MS.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for existing NRCS offices in Alaska and includes 
funding for new offices in Kodiak and Dillingham at a level of 
$250,000 each in fiscal year 2003. Also, the Committee provides 
funding necessary to support at least one staff position for 
each soil and water conservation district, a public information 
program, and assistance in rural Alaska.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding to complete the Squirrel Branch Drainage Project, 
Mississippi.
    The Committee continues funding for the implementation of 
the Delta Study at the fiscal year 2002 level. Local sponsors 
are to work cooperatively with the NRCS so that water 
conservation, water supply evaluations, and environmental 
planning can proceed.
    The Committee directs the agency to work with soil 
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the 
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties, 
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and 
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
    The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address the erosion in 
the Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in western Iowa. The 
Committee is aware that the Eastern Red Cedar and other 
invasive species of woody plants are having a very negative 
effect on prairies in the Loess Hills, a unique soil important 
to many rare animals and plants. The Committee encourages the 
Department to support efforts to reduce this problem.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding to conduct nitrogen soil tests and plant-available 
nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate poultry litter and wood 
composting in an effort to improve farmers' economic returns 
and minimize potential water quality conditions resulting from 
excess application of nutrients from manure and fertilizers on 
West Virginia's cropland.
    The Committee provides an increase of $125,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level for the Delta Conservation 
Demonstration Center, Washington County, MS.
    The Committee provides $200,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
the Idaho One-Plan, a test of the prototype Conservation 
Planning Module in the field with farmers and ranchers in 
Canyon County, ID.
    The Committee provides funding to continue the expansion of 
the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to 
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This 
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia 
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, 
to identify and characterize phosphorous movement in soils to 
determine appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and 
the management of phosphorous. This information is critical in 
helping Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues 
and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and 
the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from 
depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for evaluating and increasing native plant materials in 
Alaska.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance 
for the Seward/Resurrection River watershed project, Alaska.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for the continued 
development of a geographic information system (GIS)-based 
model in South Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation 
program data at the field level for watershed analysis 
purposes.
    The Committee provides $8,707,000 for Snow Survey and Water 
Supply Forecasting, which includes full funding for activities 
related to SNOwpack TELemetry (SNOTEL).
    The Committee provides $1,750,000 for the Little Wood River 
Irrigation District Gravity Pressure Delivery System in Idaho.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for the Backyard 
Conservation Program as part of the National Cooperative Soil 
Program. This funding is to be used to provide technical 
assistance on grazing lands and backyard containment of water 
runoff in order to improve nutrient management and protect 
water resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
    The Committee provides $375,000 for the Little Red River 
Irrigation Project in Arkansas.
    Recurring floods along the Red River in recent years have 
resulted in tremendous loss of property and have endangered 
residents throughout the basin. A number of methods, such as 
enhanced water storage capacity, more efficient drainage, and 
shifts in agricultural land use, may be employed to retard the 
flow of flood waters and reduce downstream flooding. It is 
important that these improvements be pursued in a manner 
beneficial to agriculture and result in minimal loss of 
productive farm land. Accordingly, the Committee provides 
$1,500,000 for the Red River Basin Flood Prevention Project in 
North Dakota in cooperation with the Energy and Environmental 
Research Center.
    The Committee provides $3,000,000 to provide technical 
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey 
Program.
    The Committee provides an increase above the fiscal year 
2002 level of $525,000 for cattle and nutrient management in 
stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi conservation 
districts.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to implement the Certified 
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture (CEMSA) in 
cooperation with the Iowa Soybean Association. CEMSA will be 
designed to assist producers to voluntarily adopt certifiable 
conservation plans, with additional funds to be provided from 
non-Federal sources.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for planning and design 
associated with the Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, Arkansas.
    The Committee directs the NRCS to develop a plan to 
establish a Geographic Information Systems Center of Excellence 
in cooperation with West Virginia University that will provide 
expertise to design, field, and support new applications for 
capturing, managing, analyzing, and delivering soil survey 
information in an easily accessible manner.
    The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed 
management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the 
National Pork Producers Council.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level for a 
cooperative agreement between NRCS and Alcorn State University 
to analyze soil erosion and water quality by using 
demonstration sites.
    The Committee provides an increase of $850,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 level of funding for the Wildlife Habitat 
Management Institute (WHMI) for developing and transferring 
fish and wildlife technology to States and field offices. Of 
the funds made available for the WHMI, the Committee expects 
WHMI to develop a pilot program to provide technical assistance 
to landowners to enhance the natural habitats' of bobwhite 
quail.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to assist in the 
conversion to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, 
ID, in order to reduce water quality impairments resulting from 
the return of water runoff to the aquifer by way of 
agricultural drain wells.
    The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2003 to 
perform a feasibility study for a surface impoundment in 
Choctaw County, MS.
    The Committee is aware of the additional demands for 
conservation technical assistance resulting from the New Jersey 
State Conservation Cost Share Program and provides an 
additional $900,000 for assistance in cooperation with that 
program.
    The Committee encourages NRCS to continue assistance for 
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the 
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides $150,000 for the Upper Petit Jean 
Watershed Project, Arkansas.
    The Committee expects the National Resource Conservation 
Service (NRCS) to continue to support the work of the Southwest 
Strategy and its coordinated effort to help address the natural 
resource, cultural resource, and economic issues facing the 
people of New Mexico and Arizona.
    The Committee encourages the Agency to examine the 
possibility of cost-sharing through existing conservation 
program types of cover (including plastic mulch) that would 
promote the successful establishment of tree shrub and other 
prescribed plantings used for wind erosion practices.
    The Committee provides $900,000 to proceed with the Bayou 
Meto project in Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to provide expedited 
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project 
in Florida. It is expected the agency will work in cooperation 
with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services.
    The Committee provides $400,000 to provide assistance to 
the Waynewood Drainage project in Illinois.
    The Committee provides $50,000 to provide assistance for 
the Native Seed Program which has been developed in cooperation 
with Oregon State University and the Native Plant Society of 
Oregon.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
repair of Askalmore Watershed Dam Y-17a-11, Tallahatchie 
County, MS.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to provide $150,000 for the 
State of Rhode Island to address drought-related issues, 
including ways in which producers can minimize their risks, 
diversify their operations, and expand into alternative 
practices such as organic farming.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
flood protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the 
City of Belzoni, Humphreys County, MS.
    The Committee provides $325,000 for reach at the Oregon 
Garden, including studying of wetland plant mateials for non-
point source run-off, point-source treatment of drainage from 
parking lots, sewage waste treatment, carbon storage crediting, 
reestablishment of wetlands, and for other environmental 
sustainability purposes.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot 
project.
    The Committee provides $150,000 to continue implementation 
of pilot projects designed for nutrient reducing waste 
treatment systems for dairy operations in Florida. The 
Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for drainage 
improvements in the City of Petal, MS.
    The Committee provides and increase of $1,000,000 above the 
fiscal year 2002 level for increased technical assistance in 
the State of Oregon.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for assistance to the Dry 
Creek/Neff's Grove project in the State of Utah. The Committee 
provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2003 for drainage 
improvements on Watkins Drive in the City of Jackson, MS.
    The Committee provides $650,000 to assist the Lincoln 
Parish in the development of a stormwater and conservation 
management program.
    The Committee encourages NRCS to provide assistance for 
activities in the following counties in Kentucky: Knott County 
for technical assistance relating to water and sewer disposal 
for $250,000; Boone County for conservation projects in the 
amount of $300,000; and Kenton County relating to flood 
prevention in the amount of $250,000.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
drainage improvements in the City of Port Gibson, MS.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for assistance regarding 
the Jefferson River Watershed in Montana.
    The Committee provides $200,000 in regard to an 
Environmental Impact Statement for Leslie County, KY.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to promulgate rules 
and regulations pursuant to section 1001D of Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 on payment eligibility based on 
adjusted gross income in a manner that allows non-profit 
entities to continue to receive a payment, including through 
direct participation, cooperative agreements, or as providers 
of technical assistance in conservation programs under Title 
XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 or Title II of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
    The Committee provides $450,000 for assistance regarding 
the St. John the Baptist Parish Lakes Bank Retention project in 
Louisiana.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the 
environmental benefits of using vegetative buffers along 
waterways. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with 
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    The Committee provides $150,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
drainage improvements in the City of Mount Olive, MS.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to conduct a Great Lakes 
pilot in Michigan for conservation program decision support 
capability to better evaluate and implement conservation 
programs in the Great Lakes Watershed. The Committee provides 
$500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for drainage improvements in the 
City of Meridian, MS.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with 
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, WI, regarding dairy 
waste management and in the development of a working 
arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy Forage 
Laboratory activities at Marshfield, WI and the possible 
establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at that 
location.
    The Committee provides $150,000 to assist in the False 
River Sedimentation Reduction project in Louisiana.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 to assist in the Montana 
Watershed Planning project.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to implement the Source 
Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be 
used in the State with the greatest need.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming 
Soil Survey Mapping project.
    The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land 
Internship Program in Wisconsin to help students learn about 
resource conservation.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the 
environmental benefits of using nutrient management plans for 
phosphorus and related conservation practices. The agency is 
directed to work in cooperation with the University of 
Wisconsin-Madison.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
technical assistance in North Carolina to address concerns with 
the application of phosphorous on agricultural lands.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for assistance to the Walla 
Walla Watershed Alliance in Washington.
    The Committee provides $800,000 to provide additional 
Conservation Technical Assistance funding for NRCS in Kentucky 
to provide grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to enter into a 
stewardship agreement with the Iowa Department of Agriculture 
and Land Stewardship and the Iowa Corn Growers Association to 
initiate a stewardship program focusing on nutrient best 
management practices to reduce the environmental impact of 
nitrogen in the State of Iowa pursuant to the authority under 
Partnerships and Cooperation [subsection (f) of Section 1243 of 
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3843)].
    Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less 
than the same level available in fiscal year 2002 to support 
NRCS Plant Materials Centers.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2002 level for 
improvements to the existing building and facilities at the 
Jamie Whitten Plant Materials Center.

                     WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $10,960,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      10,960,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $10,960,000. This amount is the 
same as the 2002 appropriation and $10,960,000 more than the 
budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $106,590,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     105,000,000

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public 
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides 
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States 
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent 
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or 
rivers and streams and to further the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility for administration of activities, which include 
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public 
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to 
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, 
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works 
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development 
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and 
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help 
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned 
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed and flood prevention operations, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,000,000. This 
amount is $1,590,000 less than the 2002 appropriation and 
$105,000,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 2002 level of 
funding for the Little Sioux Watershed and Mosquito Creek 
Watershed projects, Iowa.
    The Committee encourages the agency to provide assistance 
for the Seward Resurrection River Flood Mitigation Project and 
the Matanuska River, AK erosion control project.
    The Committee encourages the agency to support the 
increased demands for project completions dedicated to 
increasing water storage capacity, improving the efficiency of 
delivery systems, and conserving water through flood control 
projects, Hawaii. In particular, the Committee recommends that 
the agency provide funding to complete design and construction 
for the following approved watershed projects: Lower Hamakua 
Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed, Lahaina Watershed, 
and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed. In addition, the Committee 
recommends providing sufficient staff to complete the planning 
and design of these projects. The Committee also urges the 
agency to continue to provide leadership to coordinate water 
use and conservation activities of agencies of government and 
the private sector in Hawaii.
    The Committee expects the agency to provide funds for 
continuing work in connection with the Big Creek/Hurricane 
Creek, Grassy Creek, Moniteau Creek, East Locust Creek, West 
Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek, McKenzie Creek, Hickory 
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, Troublesome Creek and the 
Upper Locust Creek projects, all located in Missouri.
    The agency is encouraged to fund completion of construction 
of the Bayou Bourbeaux Watershed Project in Opelousas, LA.
    The Committee urges the agency to complete design and 
initiate construction of the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed 
project in West Virginia. In addition, the agency is provided 
funds to proceed with Phase III of the Little Whitestick Creek 
Channel Improvements in Raleigh County, WV. Also, the agency 
should continue to provide assistance to carry out the Potomac 
Headwaters Land Treatment Watershed project in West Virginia at 
no less than the fiscal year 2002 level.
    The Committee provides funds for NRCS to provide assistance 
for bank stabilization and channel improvement work in 
Mississippi in the Tillatoba Creek Watershed, Yalobusha County; 
Oaklimeter Creek Watershed; and the Skuna River Watershed.
    The Committee provides funds for the completion of Phase II 
of the Kuhn Bayou (Point Remove) project, Arkansas.
    The Committee continues to be aware of flooding in the 
Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has 
risen more than 25 feet since 1993. The Committee encourages 
the agency, with the cooperation of the Farm Service Agency, to 
assist in the locally coordinated flood response and water 
management activities. NRCS and FSA should continue to utilize 
conservation programs in providing water holding and storage 
areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in 
watershed management.
    The Committee urges NRCS to proceed with construction of 
Phase II of the watershed flood control project in the vicinity 
of Truth or Consequences, NM.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to continue assistance 
for watershed projects in Iowa for which funds were provided in 
fiscal year 2002 in addition to the following projects: Fox 
River, Upper Locust, Turkey Creek, Indian Creek, Mill-Picayune 
Creek, Hacklebarney, and A&T Longbranch.
    The Committee continues funding in order to complete the 
Pocasset River watershed project, Rhode Island.
    The Committee provides funds to provide assistance to 
construct grade control structures in the Piney Creek 
Watershed, Yazoo County, MS, and to provide assistance for 
construction of Town Creek Floodwater Retarding Structure #8, 
Lee County, MS.
    The Committee provides funding for the assistance for the 
Square Butte project in North Dakota.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

    The Committee recommends a new watershed rehabilitation 
program account for technical and financial assistance to carry 
out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with 
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
Act, approved August 4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended 
by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16 
U.S.C. 1012), and by section 2505 of the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee 
recommends $30,000,000. This amount is $20,000,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2002 level and $30,000,000 above the budget 
request.
    The Committee directs that funding under this program be 
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of 
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure 
public safety.

                 resource conservation and development

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $48,048,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      49,079,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,378,000

\1\ Excludes $2,952,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For resource conservation and development, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $50,378,000. This amount is 
$2,330,000 more than the 2002 level and $1,299,000 more than 
the budget request. This amount includes an increase of 
$1,409,000 for pay parity costs and benefits. The full increase 
is intended to provide additional support for existing resource 
conservation and development councils and to allow for 
consideration of newly authorized areas in states.
    The Committee is aware of applications for the 
establishment of new RC&D areas and encourages the Secretary to 
give consideration to those requests.

                      FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $6,811,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not provide funding for the Forestry 
Incentive Program. The authorization for this program was 
repealed by section 8001 of Public Law 107-171. Section 8002 of 
that Act established the Forest Land Enhancement Program which 
provides assistance to owners of non-industrial private forest 
lands in a manner similar to the Forestry Incentives Program. 
Public Law 107-171 makes available $100,000,000 from funds of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation during the period 2002 through 
2007.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $623,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         898,000
Committee recommendation................................         906,000

\1\ Excludes $25,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$906,000. This amount is $283,000 more than the 2002 level and 
$8,000 more than the budget request. This amount includes an 
increase of $25,000 for pay parity costs and benefits.
    Among renewable energy systems, combined operational 
aerobic methane digester technology is particularly promising, 
but is not currently in use in the United States, even though 
it is being employed successfully in other nations. This 
process utilizes converted animal waste energy to integrate 
adjacent green house facilities to produce specialty 
agricultural crops. In order to facilitate this self-
sustainable technology, the Committee encourages the Secretary, 
in implementing and designating regulations for making loans, 
loan guarantees, and grants under (SEC.) 9006 (for renewable 
energy systems and energy efficiency improvements) of Title IX 
of the FSRIA, to clarify that such types of combined 
operational anaerobic digesters are eligible for this 
assistance.
    The Committee is aware the Department has previously 
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership 
(NRDP). The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development 
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural 
development at the State and local level. The Committee 
recognizes the support for the continuation of this activity 
and understands the fiscal restraints imposed on the Department 
to continue adequate program funding for critical rural 
development programs as a result of significant subsidy 
increases. The Committee encourages the Secretary to review the 
impact of increased or an equal non-Federal match to preserve 
limited program resources and provide for the continuation of 
the NRDP.
    The Committee rejects the Departments request for 
$2,000,000 to fund an independent housing study for cost 
efficiencies in the delivery of multi-family housing. The 
Committee provides the Department $1,000,000 to conduct a 
capital needs assessment as outlined in the GAO report, GAO-02-
397. The Committee expects the Department to document the need 
for additional affordable housing in rural areas. The Committee 
also expects the Department to compare the costs associated 
with the Section 515 program with other Federal programs and 
incentives serving the same eligible rural population.
    The Committee is aware of a proposal for a Rural Economic 
Area Partnership (REAP) Zone designation for 17 southern 
Illinois counties. The proposal was drafted by a coalition of 
regional planning and development organizations in Southern 
Illinois. The Committee encourages the Department to give the 
proposal serious review and to provide appropriate funding and 
technical assistance.
    The Committee is aware of and supports the ongoing efforts 
and activities of the Farm Worker Institute for Education and 
Leadership Development (FIELD). The Committee encourages the 
Secretary to work with FIELD through ongoing outreach and 
technical assistance programs to enhance ongoing research, 
skill set and workforce development.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $806,557,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     791,499,000
Committee recommendation................................     867,176,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the 
Committee recommends $867,176,000. This amount is $60,619,000 
more than the fiscal year 2002 level and $75,677,000 more than 
the budget request.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2002           2003 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
    Community facility direct loan subsidies..............            13,545            15,600            15,600
    Community facility grants.............................            20,000            17,000            17,000
    Economic impact initiative grants.....................            25,000  ................            25,000
    High energy costs grants..............................            30,000  ................            30,000
    Rural community development initiative................  ................  ................            10,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, community.................................            83,545            32,600            97,600
                                                           =====================================================
Business:
    Business and industry loan subsidies:
        Direct............................................  ................  ................  ................
        Guaranteed........................................            27,400            29,085            35,730
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            41,000            44,000            47,032
    Rural business opportunity grants.....................             5,100             3,000             4,000
    Department of Energy matching grants..................             3,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            76,500            76,085            86,762
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal loan subsidies: Direct.......            60,497            92,302            92,302
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           582,515           587,012           587,012
    Solid waste management grants.........................             3,500             3,500             3,500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           646,512           682,814           682,814
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           806,557           791,499           867,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 2002 level of funding for 
transportation technical assistance.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural 
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
    The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for 
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native 
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American 
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development 
and assistance initiative.
    Community facility loans and grants.--The Committee is 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications relating to community facilities for structural 
and other essential needs of the following: the City of Craig's 
Marine Industrial Park, AK; City of Park Falls, WI; Town of 
Sunset, LA; Dillingham Dock, AK; Cave City Agricultural Center, 
Barren County, KY; Rosebud Sioux Tribe Headquarters Facility, 
South Dakota; USC Salkehatchie Leadership Center, South 
Carolina; West Baton Rouge Paris Agriculture Facility, 
Louisiana; Fort Peck Interpretative Center, Montana; Casey 
County Agricultural Center, Kentucky; Union and Wallowa 
Counties Rail Line, Oregon; Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 
Connecticut; and the Freewoods Farm, South Carolina.
    Economic impact initiative grants.--The Committee includes 
bill language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural Community 
Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme unemployment or 
severe economic depression.
    High energy cost grants.--The Committee includes bill 
language to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy 
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities 
Service.
    Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for rural business opportunity grants (RBOG) from the 
following: The Menomiee Tribal Enterprises, Rural Technical 
Assistance Program, Iowa; Wisconsin; Missouri Regional 
Councils; and the Quinebaug-Shetucket Corridor, Connecticut.
    Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is also 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants (RBEG) from 
the following: Agricultural Heritage & Resources, Inc., 
Wisconsin; The City of Crandon Industrial Park, WI; Louisiana 
Biobased Technology Development and Commercialization 
Initiative; Cumberland Valley Milling Cooperative, Kentucky; 
Value-Added Pork Products, Springfield, KY; Boone-Sang 
Cooperative Association, Kentucky; Sustainable Woods 
Cooperative, Wisconsin; Walla Walla Community College, 
Washington; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Buffalo Jerky Processing 
Plant, South Dakota; Salem County Storage Facililty, New 
Jersey; Shorebank Enterprise Pacific, Washington; Forest 
Enterprises Technology Center, Wisconsin; Mission Valley 
Market, Montana; Grants to Public Broadcasting Systems 
Programs; Hibbins Technology Business Center, Minnesota; 
University of Montana Business Incubators; City of Park Hills, 
MO; South Dakota Public Broadcasting; Business and Technology 
Extension Program, Oregon; Dairy Value-Added Cheese 
Manufacturing, Kentucky; Vermont Maple Industry Council; Cape 
Fox Native Corporation, Alaska; Chesterfield County Industrial 
Park, South Carolina; Old North State Winegrowers Cooperative 
Association, North Carolina; and the Power Applications 
Resource Center at Montana State University-Northern.
    The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the 
system by which applications for rural business enterprise 
grants are considered does not discriminate against 
applications which may benefit multiple States.
    Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants 
relating to the following projects: The Chimayo, Bloomfield, 
Truth or Consequences and Carnuel communities in New Mexico; 
Tell City Branchville Sewer Line Project, IN; Nashville, AR; 
Fort Belknap Reservation, MT; Neuse North Carolina Regional 
Water System; Abbeville County Development Board, South 
Carolina; South Kona, HI; La Pine County Waste System, Oregon; 
Connect Peculiar and Raymore Water Systems, Missouri; Lake 
County Wastewater, Illinois; Port Orford Drinking Water and 
Sewer District, Oregon; and the Belknap Heights Community Water 
System, New Hampshire.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up 
to $30,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants 
available for village safe water for the development of water 
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the 
Department to consider applications to the national program 
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations 
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe 
water funding; $20,000,000 for water and waste systems for the 
colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $18,000,000 
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized 
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to 
$12,100,000 available for the circuit rider program of which 
the $1,100,000 increase from fiscal year 2002 shall be provided 
to those States that have the most water and waste needs 
including coverage of their existing systems.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue working 
with the city of Blaine, Washington, on water and 
infrastructure needs and to use existing funds to help with 
environmental remediation of Semiahmah.
    Water and waste technical assistance training grants.--The 
Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to consider an 
increase in the grant request from the National Drinking Water 
of Clearinghouse, for which an increase in this account is 
provided. The Committee is aware of and encourages the 
Department to consider applications from the Alaska Village 
Safe Water Program to provide statewide training in water and 
waste systems operation and maintenance.
    The Committee encourages the Department to consider a pilot 
program within available funds to offer inspector training and 
certification program that would include proper well 
construction, maintenance, sampling, treatment and ensuring the 
overall safety of private wells in rural areas.
    Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of 
the need for landfill improvements for Fort Barrow, Alaska, and 
urges the Department to give priority consideration for an 
application for a solid waste management grant.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                                     RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     2002         2003 budget     recommendation
                                                                appropriation       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations...............................................         133,722      \1\ 145,736          133,956
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........        (422,241)        (455,630)        (455,630)
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans                (36,000)         (38,035)         (38,035)
     Program Account.........................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.....................          (3,082)          (3,082)          (3,082)
    Rural Local Television Program Account...................          (2,000)  ...............  ...............
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account..............          (3,733)          (4,290)          (4,290)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD salaries and expenses........................         600,778          646,773          634,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $38,603,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $634,993,000 for salaries and 
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development 
Programs. This amount is $34,215,000 more than the fiscal year 
2002 level and $11,780,000 less than the budget request.
    Of this amount, $2,000,000 shall be made available for the 
continuation of the Rural Development Partnership and the 
Secretary may provide additional funds as deemed appropriate.
    This amount includes an increase of $20,811,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $17,065,000 for rental payments to GSA or $169,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for 
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to 
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best 
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior 
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, 
any function that affects eligibility determination, 
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies 
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of 
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.

                         Rural Housing Service

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends total appropriations of 
$1,589,766,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is 
$115,289,000 more than the 2002 level and $61,249,000 more than 
the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside of funds within rural housing programs to support self-
help housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation 
and State rental assistance, and other related activities that 
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
    The Committee rejects the Administration's omission of new 
construction of section 515 loans. The Committee agrees with 
the Administration that significant resources are needed for 
repair, rehabilitation and preservation of the existing 
portfolio. Of the funds appropriated for section 515, the 
Committee recommends $50,000,000 be made available for new 
construction, $50,000,000 for servicing and rehabilitation, 
with $20,000,000 to be used for equity loans. This is a 
significant increase for equity loans.
    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2002 levels and the 2003 budget request:

                                              LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     2002         2003 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................      (1,079,848)        (957,300)      (1,005,162)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed..............................      (3,137,969)      (2,750,000)      (2,750,000)
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................         (32,325)         (35,000)         (35,000)
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................         (99,771)        (100,000)  ...............
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................        (114,069)         (60,000)        (120,000)
    Site loans (sec. 524)....................................          (5,091)          (5,011)          (5,011)
    Credit sales of acquired property........................         (11,778)         (12,000)         (12,000)
    Self-help housing land development fund..................          (5,000)          (5,000)          (5,000)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF............................................      (4,485,851)      (3,924,300)      (3,932,173)
                                                              ==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
    Farm labor housing loan level............................         (28,459)         (36,000)         (36,000)
    Farm labor housing grants................................          17,967           16,968           16,968
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Labor Program..............................         (46,426)         (52,968)         (52,968)
                                                              ==================================================
Grants and payments:
    Mutual and self-help housing.............................          35,000           34,000           35,000
    Rental assistance........................................         701,004          712,000          730,000
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................          38,914           42,498           47,498
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing grants and payments...............         774,918          788,498          812,498
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, RHS loans and grants............................      (5,307,195)      (4,765,766)      (4,897,628)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made 
to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and 
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, 
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to 
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs 
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and 
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not 
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a 
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the 
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical 
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and 
moderate-income borrowers.
    An increased priority should be placed on long term 
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing 
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and 
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of 
existing projects.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider decreasing 
the guarantee fee in the single family unsubsidized guaranteed 
program consistent with other Federal housing programs 
including fees charged for refinancing existing loans.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2002, as well 
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2002 levels and the 
2003 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal year--
                                                                ---------------------------------    Committee
                                                                    2002 level     2003 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct.................................................         142,108          185,429         194,700
        Unsubsidized guaranteed................................          40,166           19,800          19,800
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..................................          10,386           10,857          10,857
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)..................           3,921            4,500  ..............
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..................................          48,274           27,978          55,956
    Site loans (sec. 524)......................................              28               55              55
    Credit sales of acquired property..........................             750              934             934
    Self-help housing land development fund....................             254              221             221
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies....................................         245,887          249,774         282,523
                                                                ================================================
Administrative expenses........................................         422,241          455,630         455,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $701,004,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     712,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     730,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $730,000,000. This amount is 
$28,996,000 more than the 2002 level and $18,000,000 more than 
the budget request.
    The Committee provides an increase in this account and 
expects the Department to provide rental assistance for new 
construction, servicing and debt forgiveness including offering 
assistance to units that are occupied by tenants that are rent 
overburdened and projects experiencing financial difficulties 
beyond the control of the owner.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,000,000

    This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing 
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote 
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which 
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by 
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of 
construction supervisors who will work with families in the 
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of 
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This is the same as the 2002 level and 
$1,000,000 more than the budget request.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $38,914,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      42,498,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,498,000

    This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant 
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    Very low-income housing repair grants.--The Very Low-Income 
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair 
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in 
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove 
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the 
community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and technical assistance grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to 
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20 
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at 
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in 
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education 
Program was implemented under this authority. This program 
provides low-income individuals and families education and 
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of 
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become 
successful homeowners.
    Compensation for construction defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural housing preservation grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service 
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and 
very low-income people.
    The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the 
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the 
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible 
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants 
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be 
administered by local grantees.
    The Committee is also aware of and encourages the 
Department to give consideration to applications for rural 
housing preservation grants from the following. The 
Campbellsville University of Kentucky Heartland Outreach.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the 
Committee recommends $47,498,000. This is $8,584,000 more than 
the 2002 level and $5,000,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to administer the 
Demonstration Housing Grants for Agriculture Processing Workers 
through non-profits community based organizations, including 
cooperatives, and allow grant funding up to 75 percent total 
development costs for each project awarded. The Department 
should also require on-site tenant services in the selection 
criteria. The Committee provided funding for this purpose in 
fiscal year 2001 and requests that the Department make 
necessary changes in any notice for available funds from 
lessons learned.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2002 levels and 
the budget request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                    2002 level     2003 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants...........................          29,934          31,500          31,500
Supervisory and technical assistance............................             998             998             998
Rural housing preservation grants...............................           7,982          10,000          10,000
Demonstration housing grants for agriculture processing workers.  ..............  ..............           5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          38,914          42,498          47,498
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Loan level     Subsidy level      Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002...........................................         (28,459)          13,464          17,967
Budget estimate, 2003..........................................         (36,000)          17,647          16,968
Committee recommendation.......................................         (36,000)          17,647          16,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For direct farm labor housing loans, the Committee 
recommends a total level of $36,000,000. This is $7,541,000 
more than the 2002 level and the same as the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

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

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                               2002 level   2003 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level........      (38,171)      (40,000)       (40,000)
Direct loan subsidy.........       16,494        19,304         19,304
Administrative expenses.....        3,733         4,290          4,290
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small 
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural 
businesses, community development corporations, private 
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the 
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities, 
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy 
in rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2003, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee recommends a total loan level of $40,000,000. This is 
$1,829,000 more than the 2002 loan level and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee encourages the agency to consider the 
following for intermediary relending loans: The Menominee 
Tribal Enterprises, Wisconsin; Impact Seven, Inc., Wisconsin; 
Northern Economic Initiatives Corporation, Michigan; Southern 
Financial Partners, Arkansas; and the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Progress Fund.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                             2002 level        2003 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................           (14,966)           (14,967)           (14,967)
Direct loan subsidy \1\................................             3,616              3,197              3,197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
  Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy 
appropriation for rural economic development loans of 
$40,000,000. This amount is $1,829,000 more than the 2002 level 
and the same as the budget request. As proposed in the budget, 
the $3,197,000 provided is derived by transfer from interest on 
the cushion of credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,750,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions, 
which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive 
and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical 
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for rural cooperative 
development grants. This is $1,250,000 more than the 2002 level 
and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
consider the following applications for cooperative development 
grants: the Alaska Network Systems for Internet Facilities 
Mission Valley, Montana; Montana State University-Northern 
Cooperative Development Center; Mississippi Association of 
Cooperatives; and a rural cooperative located in Elko, 
Pershing, and Humboldt Counties, Nevada.
    Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the 
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through 
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
Appropriate Technology.
    The Committee has included language in the bill that not 
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or 
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide 
assistance to small, minority producers.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $14,967,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      14,967,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $14,967,000 for Rural Empowerment 
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is the 
same as the 2002 level and $14,967,000 more than the budget 
request.
    The Committee rejects the Administration's omission of 
direct funding to Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise 
Communities and the position that most of the support for these 
designated areas is in the form of tax incentives to businesses 
in the zones.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and 
telecommunications programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2003, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the ``Rural electrification and telecommunications loans 
program'' account, the loan subsidy and administrative 
expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget 
request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                   ----------------------------     Committee
                                                                     2002 level   2003 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent.........................................     (121,107)     (121,103)         (121,103)
        Direct, Muni..............................................     (500,000)     (100,000)         (100,000)
        Direct, FFB...............................................   (2,600,000)   (1,600,000)       (2,600,000)
        Direct, Treasury rate.....................................     (750,000)     (700,000)       (1,150,000)
        Guaranteed................................................     (100,000)     (100,000)         (100,000)
        Guaranteed, Underwriting..................................  ............  ............       (1,000,000)
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................   (4,071,107)   (2,621,103)       (5,071,103)
                                                                   =============================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent.........................................      (74,827)      (75,029)          (75,029)
        Direct, Treasury rate.....................................     (300,000)     (300,000)         (300,000)
        Direct, FFB...............................................     (120,000)     (120,000)         (120,000)
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................     (494,827)     (495,029)         (495,029)
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Total, loan authorizations..............................   (4,565,934)   (3,116,132)       (5,566,132)
                                                                   =============================================
Loan Subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent.........................................        3,609         6,915             6,915
        Direct, Muni \1\..........................................  ............        4,030             4,030
        Direct, FFB \2\...........................................  ............  ............  ................
        Direct, Treasury rate \2\.................................  ............  ............  ................
        Guaranteed................................................           80            80                80
        Guaranteed, Underwriting \3\..............................  ............  ............  ................
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................        3,689        11,025            11,025
                                                                   =============================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent.........................................        1,736         1,283             1,283
        Direct, Treasury rate.....................................          300           150               150
        Direct, FFB \2\...........................................  ............  ............  ................
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................        2,036         1,433             1,433
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
          Total, loan subsidies...................................        5,725        12,458            12,458
                                                                   =============================================
Administrative expenses...........................................       36,000        38,035            38,035
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans          41,725        50,493            50,493
       Programs Account...........................................
                                                                   =============================================
            (Loan authorization)..................................   (4,565,934)   (3,116,132)       (4,566,132)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2002 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are calculated for these programs.
\3\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2003 is calculated for this program.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Direct loan   Administrative
                                                                    Loan level        subsidy         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002...........................................        (174,615)           3,737           3,082
Budget estimate, 2003..........................................  ...............  ..............           3,082
Committee recommendation.......................................        (174,615)           2,410           3,082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A 
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time 
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. 
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the 
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2003, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $2,410,000 which supports a loan 
level of $174,615,000. This amount is $1,327,000 less than the 
2002 level and $2,410,000 more than the budget request.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

                            LOANS AND GRANTS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2002 level      2003 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance learning and telemedicine direct loan...............        (300,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)
Broadband telecommunications direct loans....................         (80,000)         (79,535)         (79,535)
Direct loan subsidy \1\......................................  ...............           4,104            4,104
Grants.......................................................          49,441           26,945           47,837
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Budget Authority.................................          49,441           31,049           51,941
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2002 is calculated for this program.

    The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program is 
authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. 
This program provides incentives to improve the quality of 
phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee recommends $51,941,000. This amount is $2,500,000 
more than the 2002 level and $20,892,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee is aware that the public television 
stations are facing a deadline of May 2003 to meet the Federal 
Communication's mandate to broadcast digital television 
signals. The Committee understands that many of those stations 
will have considerable financial difficulty in meeting that 
deadline.
    Of the funds provided for Distance Learning and 
Telemedicine, the Committee has provided $15,000,000 in grants 
for pubic broadcasting systems to meet this goal. In addition, 
of the funds provided, $10,000,000 in grants shall be made 
available to support broadband transmission and local dial-up 
Internet services for rural areas. The Department should 
continue to provide financial support in addition to the 
Distance Learning and Telemedicine grant and loan accounts.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to the following applications for grants and 
loans: The Lakeshore Technical College, Wisconsin; Alaska 
Federal Health Care Access Network; South Dakota Community 
Healthcare Association's Integrated Management Information 
System; Kentucky Telehealth Network; Maui Community College Sky 
Bridge Interactive Television Network, Hawaii; Farm Resource 
Center, Illinois; Montana Agriculture Knowledge Network; Lane 
County, OR; Fresno Community Medical Centers, California; City 
of Jackson, TN; Troy State Alabama Technology Network; 
Huntington College, Alabama; and the Educational Services 
District 105, Washington.
    The Committee encourages the Department to fund a 
demonstration project to build upon existing resources and to 
further the use of advanced telecommunications by rural 
communities.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $587,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................         774,000
Committee recommendation................................         781,000

\1\ Excludes $23,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $781,000. This amount is $194,000 more than 
the 2002 level and $7,000 more than the budget request. This 
amount includes an increase of $23,000 for pay parity costs and 
benefits.
    The Committee remains aware of innovative work in Wisconsin 
and Iowa making milk available through school vending machines 
as an alternative to other beverages. In 2002, the Under 
Secretary was directed to examine the merits of these 
experiments and their potential to improve child health and 
nutrition. Based upon that information, the Under Secretary is 
now directed to expand these efforts as pilot programs in these 
States.
    The Committee is aware of the benefits of programs such as 
the WIC and Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs, which 
improve nutrition among low-income mothers, children and senior 
citizens by giving them access to locally grown fresh fruits 
and vegetables. The Committee also recognizes the benefits 
these and all farmers' markets provide for local farmers. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Under Secretary to work 
with the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 
to study the potential for a broad Farmers' Market Program 
within the Agricultural Marketing Service, which would provide 
funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, the 
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and the recently 
authorized Farmers' Market Promotion Program. The Committee 
requests a report on the potential of such a program, including 
cost estimates, by March 1, 2003.
    The Committee is alarmed at the level of obesity in this 
country, and the health-related problems this causes. It has 
been recently reported that over 300,000 Americans die each 
year from obesity-related causes, and the economic costs of 
these illnesses is significant. The FNS mission area is 
directed to help Americans follow the Dietary Guidelines, 
including guidelines urging Americans to ``aim for a healthy 
weight'' and ``be physically active.'' The Committee is pleased 
that FNS is currently planning specific program directions and 
activities for ``Breaking the Barriers: Practical Approaches to 
Improve Americans' Eating Behaviors,'' an initiative that will 
focus on changing Americans' eating behaviors and exercise 
patterns, and encourages FNS to continue these activities.
    Further, the Committee is aware that the administration is 
developing its Healthier U.S. Initative, promoting nutritious 
diets, physical activity, preventative screenings, and healthy 
lifestyles as means to combat increasing obesity and diabetes 
rates, particularly among children. The Committee is encouraged 
by this approach, and believes that a media component, 
including in-school educational networks, would be an effective 
part of this initiative.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally 
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and 
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children. 
These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches 
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school 
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children. 
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and 
transfer from section 32.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental 
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through 
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or 
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency 
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct 
appropriation.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance 
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a 
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access 
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to 
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition 
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide 
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs 
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income 
households.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000 
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to 
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and 
administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program [TEFAP].
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by 
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance 
Act.
    Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural 
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States 
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is 
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting 
administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding for 
use in non-Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters. Funds for this program are provided by direct 
appropriation.
    Food Program Administration.--Most salaries and Federal 
operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 
from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition 
Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and 
revisions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the 
focal point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion 
and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As 
of September 30, 2001, there were 1,504 full-time permanent and 
72 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. FNS's 
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria, VA, totals 
555, and 1,021 FNS employees are located in the field. There 
are 7 regional offices employing 637 employees, and the balance 
of the agency is located in 4 food stamp compliance offices, 1 
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative 
review office, and 69 field offices. Funds for this program are 
provided by direct appropriation.

                        child nutrition programs


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 32
                                                              Appropriation       transfers           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002......................................         4,914,788         5,172,458        10,087,246
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\.................................         5,382,179         5,193,990        10,576,169
Committee recommendation..................................         5,834,506         4,745,663        10,580,169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $553,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 
Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act 
of 1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the 
form of cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving 
nutritious meals to children while they are attending school, 
residing in service institutions, or participating in other 
organized activities away from home. The purpose of these 
programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical 
development of America's children. Milk is provided to children 
either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income 
level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States administering the 
programs and directly administers the program in the States 
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. 
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis 
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to 
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The 
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in 
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child 
nutrition provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes the 
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for 
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently 
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 
18 in after-school programs, and provides funds for 
demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children 
and family day care homes in low-income areas. On July 1, 1999, 
the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless Summer 
Food Service Program was transferred into the CACFP.
    National School Lunch Program [NSLP].--(1) Significantly 
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in 
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in 
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a 
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
    A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:
    1. Cash payments to States.--The programs are operated 
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the 
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to 
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and 
other institutions. Sponsors apply to the State agencies, and 
if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis in accordance 
with the terms of their agreements and rates prescribed by law. 
The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect 
changes in the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
          (a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to 
        the States for the service of lunches to all school 
        children, regardless of family income. States must 
        match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year 
        2003, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.8 billion school lunches 
        including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.8 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 28.4 million children 
        are expected to participate in the program daily during 
        the school year.
          (b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price 
        lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the 
        States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price 
        to needy children. In fiscal year 2003, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.8 
        billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.4 billion at reduced price. About 
        17 million needy children will participate in the 
        program on an average schoolday during the year.
          (c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement 
        to the States is based on the number of breakfasts 
        served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate 
        for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools 
        are designated in severe need because, in the second 
        preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of 
        their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the 
        regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to 
        cover cost. These schools receive higher rates of 
        reimbursement in both the free and reduced-price 
        categories. In fiscal year 2003, the program will serve 
        an estimated 1.4 billion breakfasts to a daily average 
        of 8.3 million children.
          (d) State administrative expenses.--The funds may be 
        used for State employee salaries, benefits, support 
        services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made 
        the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 
        percent of certain Federal payments in the second 
        previous year. In fiscal year 2003, $133,583,000 will 
        be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State 
        administrative expenses and to improve the management 
        of various nutrition programs.
          (e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free 
        to children in low-income neighborhoods during the 
        summer months are supported on a performance basis by 
        Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are 
        also provided for related State and local 
        administrative expenses. During the summer of 2003, 
        approximately 153.3 million meals will be served.
          (f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool 
        children receive year-round food assistance in 
        nonprofit child care centers and family and group day 
        care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits 
        profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation 
        under title XX of the Social Security Act to 
        participate in the program if 25 percent of the 
        children served are title XX participants. Certain 
        adult day care centers are also eligible for 
        participation in this program, providing subsidized 
        meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older. 
        The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State 
        agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, 
        suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related 
        State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2003, 
        approximately 1.8 billion meals will be served.
    2. Commodity procurement.--Commodities are purchased for 
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer 
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for 
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers 
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to 
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in 
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these 
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 
funds.
    3. Nutrition studies and education.--The National Food 
Service Management Institute provides instruction for educators 
and school food service personnel in nutrition and food service 
management.
    4. Special milk.--In fiscal year 2003, approximately 116.1 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 111.2 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 2003, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 18.1 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 14.0 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $5,834,506,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $4,745,663,000, for a total program of $10,580,169,000. 
This amount is $492,923,000 more than the 2002 level and 
$4,000,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                  Child nutrition programs \1\                     2002 estimate    2003 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................       5,842,358       6,074,648       6,074,648
School Breakfast Program........................................       1,574,654       1,660,870       1,660,870
State administrative expenses...................................         126,853         133,583         133,583
Summer Food Service Program.....................................         311,897         334,686         334,686
Child and Adult Care Food Program...............................       1,799,735       1,904,494       1,904,494
Special Milk Program............................................          16,891          16,449          16,449
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support.........         398,362         435,334         435,334
Coordinated review system.......................................           4,507           5,080           5,080
Team nutrition..................................................           9,991          10,025          10,025
Food safety education...........................................           1,998           1,000           1,000
School Breakfast Grant Startup Program..........................             500  ..............           3,300
Common Roots Program............................................  ..............  ..............             200
Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center.........................  ..............  ..............             500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes studies and evaluations.

    The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition. 
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training 
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance 
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management 
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and 
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for 
other activities.
    Of the amount provided, no more than $3,195,000 is 
available for studies and evaluations. Of these funds, no more 
than $500,000 may be transferred to the Economic Research 
Service if determined by the Secretary. The Committee expects 
to be notified each time that such a transfer of funds occurs, 
including the amount of the transfer, and a summary of the 
study for which the transfer was deemed necessary. The 
Committee also requests a report within 60 days of the 
enactment of this Act summarizing all studies and evaluations 
planned by FNS for fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food 
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety 
education program.
    The Committee is aware of a survey taken in Wisconsin 
studying the effects of the School Breakfast Program startup 
grants. In schools that have received a startup grant, 
approximately 66 percent of teachers indicated they have 
observed positive benefits of instituting a school breakfast 
program. Benefits included ``increased learning readiness,'' 
``increased socialization,'' and ``improved student behavior.'' 
Therefore, the Committee provides $3,300,000 to continue the 
School Breakfast Startup Grant Program in order to help cover 
appropriate costs associated with the program and to expand the 
availability of school breakfasts for children. Of these funds, 
no less than $1,000,000 is to be directed to the State of 
Wisconsin, up to $175,000 of which shall be available for 
administrative costs related to program outreach and expansion. 
The balance of funds is to be directed to no less than five 
States that have had a significantly lower percentage of 
participation in the School Breakfast Program than the national 
average over the past 3 years.
    The Committee provides $200,000 to Food Works of Vermont 
for the Common Roots program. This program integrates school 
gardens into the curriculum in order to encourage students to 
learn about and appreciate our agrarian and cultural heritage, 
and to provide interesting, hands-on instruction in a variety 
of classes including math, biology, science and social studies. 
The program also coordinates with other programs that are 
offered as a way to increase community involvement in the free 
summer lunch program and integrate fresh foods into the lunches 
served through this program.
    The Committee provides $500,000, available for 2 years, to 
establish a Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center at the 
National Food Service Management Institute.
    The Committee continues a general provision in the bill to 
expand the number of low-income children in child care centers 
that receive nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program. This language eliminates the outdated requirement 
that eligible children receive Title 20 funds in order to 
receive the CACFP meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary 
centers to participate in CACFP if at least 25 percent of the 
children they serve are eligible for a free or reduced price 
meal.
    The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to 
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25 
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option. 
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in 
increasing participation in the CACFP program. Under current 
law, which provides two options of participation, States are 
encouraged to use this flexibility to maximize participation 
until the 25 percent free or reduced-price meal eligibility 
criteria is made permanent.
    The Committee believes that while there are many beneficial 
programs to feed low-income children throughout the school 
year, such as the National School Lunch Program and the School 
Breakfast Program, there are significantly fewer opportunities 
for low-income children to receive balanced meals during the 
summer months. One such opportunity exists as part of the 
Federal Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). This program 
provides free, nutritious meals and snacks to help children in 
low-income areas receive the nutrition they need throughout the 
summer months. The benefits of SFSP are multiple: not only does 
SFSP provide children with a healthy meal, many of the approved 
SFSP sponsors include schools districts, local government 
agencies, or camps that provide programming for recreational 
and educational opportunities that foster learning throughout 
the summer months while parents are working. However, SFSP is 
currently underutilized. According to a recent report, for 
every 100 children who receive a free or reduced-price lunch 
during the regular school year, only 21.1 children receive 
meals during the summer.
    The Committee is aware that in 2000, a pilot program was 
introduced that allowed 13 states to improve their use of SFSP 
by simplifying cost accounting requirements for some sponsors, 
reducing paperwork, and allowing for a modestly higher 
reimbursement for meals and snacks provided under SFSP. In 
these pilot states, SFSP participation increased by 8.9 percent 
between July 2000 and July 2001. Therefore, the Committee 
believes it will be beneficial, and provides sufficient funding 
through a general provision, for expansion of this pilot 
program to all 50 states in fiscal year 2003. It is the 
Committee's expectation that this program will be incorporated 
into the Child Nutrition Act, which is scheduled for 
reauthorization, in fiscal year 2003.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 [WIC]

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................  $4,348,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   4,751,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,751,000,000

\1\ Excludes $39,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 107-117.

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.8 
million participants at an average food cost of $35.86 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2003.
    The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable 
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut 
butter.
    There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC 
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain 
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery 
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home; 
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick 
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge 
to all participants.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through 
2003 and adds several provisions to the program. For example, 
the Act requires that an individual seeking certification or 
recertification in the program must provide documentation of 
family income. In addition, the Act permits State agencies to 
award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering 
the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State agency 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the 
weighted average retail price for different brands of formula 
in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
    Public Law 105-336 also includes many provisions to improve 
retailer integrity and help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse 
in the program.
    The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also 
funded from the WIC appropriation, and in fiscal year 2002 will 
receive Commodity Credit Corporation funds as authorized by the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. FMNP is 
designed to accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the 
diets of WIC (or WIC-eligible) participants by providing them 
with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, 
such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to 
increase the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households. Although directly related to the WIC 
Program, about one-half of the current FMNP operations are 
administered by State departments of agriculture rather than 
the State WIC agencies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $4,751,000,000. This amount is $403,000,000 
more than the 2002 appropriation and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee is aware that in recent years, the WIC 
Program has increasingly been in need of supplemental 
appropriations throughout the fiscal year due to unexpected 
economic changes that have resulted in higher participation, 
higher food costs, and other increased needs. The Committee 
realizes the difficulty in providing the highest level of 
service to WIC recipients when there is uncertainty whether or 
not the necessary amount of funding will be available 
throughout the entire fiscal year, and this uncertainty could 
potentially result in low-income mothers and children being 
turned away from this extraordinarily successful and beneficial 
program. Therefore, the Committee provides a WIC funding 
reserve of $125,000,000, to become available when the Secretary 
deems necessary.
    The Committee is aware that the WIC Farmers' Market Program 
provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income mothers and 
children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but local 
farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides $25,000,000 
for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and directs the 
Secretary to obligate these funds within 45 days.
    The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure 
funding, and $2,000,000 for a study of WIC vendor practices.
    The Committee is concerned that the proposed rules to 
revise the regulations governing the WIC food packages have not 
yet been published. The Committee notes that the WIC food 
package has changed little since 1974. In the past decade, USDA 
has twice solicited comments, in 1994 and 1998, on a draft 
policy on food substitutions to accommodate food preferences 
and ethnic cultural eating patterns. However, the Department 
has not moved forward with the development of a WIC food 
package that responds to the needs of the culturally sensitive 
populations WIC serves and with comprehensive revisions in the 
overall food package rule to ensure consistency with the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA's Food Guide Pyramid. 
The Committee expects the Department to immediately publish for 
public comment a proposed food package rule responding to these 
needs and to report quarterly to the Committee regarding the 
status of the proposal's publication and the review of comments 
until a final rule is published.
    The Committee notes that Federal regulations set a maximum 
amount for infant formula to be issued to WIC participants each 
month at a rate of 8 lbs. of powdered formula, or 403 fluid 
ounces of concentrated liquid formula. Infant formula 
manufacturers offer powdered formula in a variety of can sizes, 
which they change periodically. Because the maximum amount 
can't be exceeded and because the powdered can size variations 
rarely exactly match the authorized amount, WIC clients may be 
provided less formula than they are authorized to receive. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Department to change WIC 
regulations to allow State WIC agencies to round up to the next 
whole can size of infant formula to ensure that all infants 
receive at least 8 lbs. or 128 ounces of powdered infant 
formula, or 944 reconstituted fluid ounces, at standard 
dilution, per month.
    While the Committee continues to support and encourage 
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important 
means of participation referral to other health care services, 
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC 
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care 
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program 
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC 
plays an important role in screening and referral to other 
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention 
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and 
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the 
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's 
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the 
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost 
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in 
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by 
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses 
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those 
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal 
agency. Within the context of authorized activities, the 
Committee notes an Executive Memorandum issued by the President 
on December 11, 2000, on the subject of improving immunization 
rates for children at risk. The Committee supports the goal of 
the Executive Memorandum, but remains concerned that the 
delivery of core WIC objectives may suffer without properly 
shared responsibilities and resources from other agencies.

                           food stamp program


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          TEFAP
                                            Expenses \1\    Amount in    Puerto Rico    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve                    purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002......................    19,556,436     2,000,000     1,335,550       100,000    22,991,986
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\.................    22,772,692     2,000,000     1,377,000       100,000    26,249,692
Committee recommendation..................    22,772,692     2,000,000     1,377,000   \3\ 140,000    26,289,692
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Including studies and evaluations.
\2\ Excludes $281,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.
\3\ Includes an additional $40,000,000 provided by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

    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 stamp benefits with which they 
can purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance. The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 
2002, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 
2007.
    The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by 
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household 
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty 
food plan. The last revision was made on October 1, 2001.
    At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number 
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the 
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal 
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it 
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases. 
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the 
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted 
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from 
issuance of coupons.
    As of September 30, 2001, 40 EBT projects were operating 
Statewide in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, 
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 
Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. EBT is also operating in 
part of California, Indiana, and Iowa. All other States are in 
some stage of planning EBT implementation. Puerto Rico has 
implemented an EBT system that operates island-wide. Welfare 
reform mandates EBT for all States by October 2002. Under this 
system, each recipient household is issued a plastic benefit 
card with a magnetic strip or computer chip to make food 
purchases. Neither cash nor food coupons are involved.
    Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized 
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and 
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility 
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is 
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income 
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual 
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, 
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through 
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct 
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to 
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program. 
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve 
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Effective October 1, 2001, The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law, 107-171, enacted May 13, 
2002, provides that $140,000,000 be used to purchase 
commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Administrative costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the 
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control 
(QC) System. States with poor performance over 2 years will 
face sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of 
accuracy or substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy 
under the QC system will be eligible to share in a $48,000,000 
``bonus fund'' established by Congress to reward States for 
good performance. The new system begins in fiscal year 2003 for 
measuring performance, and in fiscal year 2004 the new funding 
begins.
    State administration also includes State antifraud 
activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief 
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations 
and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, 
training, or experience that will increase their ability to 
obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department 
of Agriculture implemented a grant program to States to assist 
them in providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends 
$26,289,692,000. This is $3,297,706,000 more than the 2002 
appropriation level and $40,000,000 more than the budget 
request. Of the amount provided, $2,000,000,000 is made 
available as a contingency reserve. This is the same as the 
2002 contingency reserve level and the budget request.
    Of the amount provided, no more than $5,000,000 may be used 
for studies and evaluations. Of these funds, no more than 
$1,500,000 may be transferred to the Economic Research Service 
if determined by the Secretary. The Committee expects to be 
notified each time that such a transfer of funds occurs, 
including the amount of the transfer, and a summary of the 
study for which the transfer was deemed necessary. The 
Committee also requests a report within 60 days of the 
enactment of this Act summarizing all studies and evaluations 
planned by FNS for fiscal year 2003.
    Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase 
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations 
without competition.
    The Committee is aware that there continues to be a 
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). 
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for 
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of 
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to 
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork 
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with 
improvements in the food package, including the addition of 
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which 
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
    Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
must submit for the Secretary's approval a yearly plan that 
contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits 
under the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico 
are provided during the following fiscal year. While the 
Committee notes the program flexibility normally afforded to 
Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages the Secretary not to 
approve any NAP plan that does not require at least 75 percent 
of NAP funds to be spent on food at certain stores with point-
of-sales devices.
    The Committee notes the Secretary's recent waiver of 
Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Food Stamp Act. The Committee 
believes it is important to study any potential risks it may 
pose to State and Federal oversight of the Food Stamp Program, 
as well as to families in need of food assistance. The 
Committee directs that no additional waivers of this provision 
be granted until a thorough and independent evaluation of the 
current waiver is complete. This evaluation should assess costs 
to the Federal Government; the private entity's compliance with 
all requirements of the Food Stamp Act, particularly program 
integrity and the Privacy Act; and access to benefits as 
measured by food stamp participation rates and service to the 
most disadvantaged households. The evaluation should also 
compare the hiring and personnel policies of the contractor 
with the merit systems standards of the State, and provide an 
analysis of the issues associated with shifting governmental 
responsibilities to a private contractor, including potential 
disruption, cost, and the State's capacity to reassume program 
administration. The Committee requests a report on the 
evaluation findings on this waiver, including the previously 
listed items, prior to the Secretary granting any further 
waivers of Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Food Stamp Act.
    The Committee urges the Secretary of Agriculture to work 
with States to reduce Food Stamp error rates. The Congress 
recently simplified the Food Stamp program and reformed the 
quality control system, including the methodology for 
calculating error rate penalties in recognition of the 
difficulty in administering the Food Stamp program. The 
Committee encourages the Department to continue to negotiate 
with States that were sanctioned in fiscal year 2001.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................    $152,813,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     144,991,000
Committee recommendation................................     167,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect $3,300,000 rescission of available prior year 
apropriations.

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses 
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program 
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6, 
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have 
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    In fiscal year 2003 approximately 76,700 women, infants, 
and young children and 369,381 elderly are authorized to 
receive food packages each month. The foods are provided by the 
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State 
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant 
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for 
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the 
program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people 
through prepared meals served on site and through the 
distribution of commodities to low-income households for home 
consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State 
agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 
State agencies make the commodities available to local 
organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food 
banks, and community action agencies, for their use in 
providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    In fiscal year 2001, $329,000,000 worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Donations will continue in fiscal year 2002. Precise levels 
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and 
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2002, 
$20,820,000 will be used to help State and local authorities 
with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus 
commodities to needy individuals. Although the $20,820,000 was 
allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds, 
each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase 
of additional commodities.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
reauthorizes funding to support the storage and distribution of 
commodities through fiscal year 2007, and increases the amount 
authorized to be appropriated from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. 
The law permits State and local agencies to use these funds to 
pay costs associated with the storage and distribution of USDA 
commodities and commodities secured from other sources. At the 
request of the State, these funds can be used by USDA to 
purchase additional commodities. The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 also reauthorizes funding for the 
purchase of TEFAP commodities and increases the amount of funds 
available from $100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the 
commodities purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities 
obtained under agriculture support programs are donated to 
States for distribution through TEFAP.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $167,000,000. This amount is 
$14,187,000 more than the 2002 funding level and $22,009,000 
more than the budget request.
    The Committee continues to encourage the Department to 
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among 
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities 
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity 
allocations through each of the programs funded under this 
account.
    The Committee is aware that since 1997, commodities 
provided through TEFAP have increased by approximately 400 
percent, with most of the increase coming through surplus or 
bonus commodities purchased by USDA. The Committee is further 
aware that during difficult economic times, the number of 
Americans in need of assistance through State and local food 
banks increases. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 provides an additional $40,000,000 for TEFAP commodities 
to be purchased with food stamp funds, even further increasing 
the need for additional administrative funding. Therefore, the 
Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for TEFAP 
administrative funding over the fiscal year 2002 level, for a 
total of $55,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides the 
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $5,000,000 
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
    The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food 
products are made available by hunters and other game 
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State 
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of 
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration 
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide 
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP 
administrative funds for this purpose.
    The Committee provides $107,000,000 for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program. This is an increase of $4,187,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level, and $12,810,000 above the 
President's request. This funding level is adequate to continue 
funding for five States added in fiscal year 2002, and will 
allow CSFP to expand to Alaska, Indiana, Nevada and South 
Carolina. Of this amount, no less than $24,000,000 shall be 
available for administrative funding.
    The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which provided fresh fruits 
and vegetables to more than 400,000 low-income senior citizens 
and benefited more than 14,000 farmers in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding was provided in the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 for this 
program, and provides an additional $5,000,000 for the Seniors 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program for fiscal year 2003.

                        FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $150,749,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................       1,081,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,081,000

\1\ The fiscal year 2003 budget recommends moving commodity support for 
the Nutrition Service Incentive Program to the Department of Health and 
Human Services Administration on Aging.

    Nutrition Services Incentive Program.--Commodity support 
for the Nutrition Service Incentive Program is authorized by 
titles III and VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods 
provided are used in preparing meals which are served in senior 
citizen centers and similar settings or delivered to the 
homebound elderly. These meals are the focal point of the 
nutrition projects for the elderly which have the dual 
objective of promoting better health and reducing the isolation 
of old age.
    Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are 
distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites. 
Some States elect to take all of their subsidy in cash and some 
States choose to receive a combination of cash and commodities. 
The commodities made available to the Nutrition Services 
Incentive Program are generally the same as those provided to 
schools under the Child Nutrition Programs. In previous years, 
the State agencies that elected to receive cash in lieu of 
commodities were funded on a payment per meal basis. The Older 
Americans Act of 2000, Public Law 106-501, enacted November 13, 
2000, revised the funding formula. The Act requires that each 
State or grantee receive a proportion of available funds equal 
to the proportion of meals served by that State or grantee in 
the preceding fiscal year. The Act reauthorizes the program 
through 2005.
    Pacific Island assistance.--This program provides funding 
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding 
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the food donations programs for selected groups, the 
Committee recommends $1,081,000. This amount is $149,668,000 
less than the 2002 appropriation and the same as the budget 
request. The full amount recommended by the Committee is for 
the needy family program.
    The Committee agrees with the Administration's request to 
shift funding for the Nutrition Services Incentive Program 
(NSIP) from the Food and Nutrition Service within USDA to the 
Administration on Aging within the Department of Health and 
Human Services (DHHS). It is the Committee's belief, however, 
that it is critically important for several aspects of NSIP to 
remain intact, as the program is shifted into DHHS. This 
includes the allocation of NSIP funds on the basis of the 
number of meals served in a State in the previous year, as 
opposed to the number of seniors that reside in that State. 
Further, NSIP funds are not currently, and should not become, 
subject to transfer or administrative match requirements, and 
States should continue to have the option of receiving benefits 
in the form of cash or commodities. The Committee directs the 
Under Secretary to work with the Assistant Secretary for Aging 
within DHHS to ensure this transfer of funding and 
responsibilities is carried out in a manner that in no way 
disrupts the delivery of services provided by NSIP.

                      food program administration

Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................    $127,546,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\...............................     147,944,000
Committee recommendation................................     138,142,000

\1\ Does not reflect $2,496,000 made available to the Congressional 
Hunger Center Foundation as provided by Public Law 107-76.
\2\ Excludes $7,911,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $138,142,000. This amount is $10,596,000 
more than the 2002 level and $9,802,000 less than the budget 
request. Included in this amount is an increase of $4,500,000 
for activities to enhance program integrity in the Food Stamp 
and Child Nutrition Programs, and an increase of $4,796,000 for 
pay parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $11,047,000 for rental payments to GSA or $32,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Transfers from
                                                           Appropriations     loan accounts          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................................           121,813            (4,257)          (126,070)
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................           131,668            (4,257)          (135,925)
Committee recommendation................................           131,938            (4,257)          (136,195)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $3,902,000 requested for employee pension and health benefits.

    The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence 
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with 
information on world agricultural production and trade that 
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a 
continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout 
the world covering some 130 countries.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural 
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and 
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current 
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific 
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about 
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to 
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate 
these estimates.
    In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques 
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of 
events which may affect the condition and expected production 
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States. 
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided 
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and 
related data.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 80 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with 
market development cooperators, trade associations, State 
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales 
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS 
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural 
products, provides information about foreign importers, and 
performs a wide range of market development activities.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, 
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association 
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture 
export expansion. Through 2001, nonprofit private trade and 
producer associations have generated an estimated 
$1,391,000,000 in contributions to more than match the 
$854,000,000 contributed by FAS to finance overseas market 
promotion activities under the Cooperator Program. In addition, 
GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the 
recent progress of American agriculture in the world 
marketplace.
    The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to 
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 16 
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to 
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing 
officials in trade promotion.
    The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the 
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with 
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance 
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies 
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to 
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports 
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate 
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S. 
agricultural exports to third markets.
    FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of 
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote 
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing 
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural 
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all 
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies 
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of 
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in 
its work with foreign countries, international organizations, 
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S. 
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $131,938,000. This is 
$10,125,000 more than the 2002 appropriation and $270,000 less 
than the budget request.
    This amount includes an increase of $2,826,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits. This amount does not include an 
increase of $454,000 for rental payments to GSA or $16,000 for 
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 
2002 level.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2003 budget request 
level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide 
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
    The Committee continues to include language in a general 
provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up 
to $2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain 
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting 
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject 
to documentation.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), 
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure 
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
    The Committee is concerned that the Dairy Export Incentive 
Program (DEIP) loses a substantial percentage of its tonnage 
every year due to cancellation or nullification of DEIP awards 
by foreign buyers or for other reasons beyond the control of 
U.S. dairy producers. Because the permitted DEIP tonnage is 
strictly limited each year under United States commitments made 
to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is vital that this 
lost tonnage be reallocated during the applicable export year 
under WTO rules so that it can be used, not wasted.
    The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service 
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska 
Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and 
other seafood to overseas markets.
    To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve 
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural 
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding 
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the 
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology. 
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for 
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested 
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign 
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the U.S. 
fails to participate in such discussions, those attempting to 
limit the access to foreign markets by U.S. producers will be 
presented an opportunity to undermine confidence in the 
benefits and safety of the technology while reducing trade 
opportunities for American producers. The Committee directs FAS 
to allocate adequate funding to meet the needs of our trading 
partners so that officials from the Department of Agriculture 
may, when requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety 
of the technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory 
process.
    In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary 
to work with representatives of the dairy industry and 
appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the 
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian 
assistance programs.
    The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus 
non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price 
support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing 
storage costs associated with this buildup and encourages the 
agency to utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce 
this growing surplus.
    The Committee encourages FAS to support the Central Asia/
Krasnodar, Turkey and China Initiative project for the 
development of biotechnological and conservation activities and 
to develop services modeled on the Cooperative Extension 
Service. The Committee also recommends FAS support for the 
``Good Neighbor Partnership--Azores'' initiative by the Azores 
Collaborative Research and Education Group (ACREG).

                 PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative
                                                             Credit level       Loan subsidy        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................................           (154,664)           126,409             2,005
Budget estimate, 2003...................................           (131,676)            98,904             2,059
Committee recommendation................................           (154,664)           116,171             2,059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 2003 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of 
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for 
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency 
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides 
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars 
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 
5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms 
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and 
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment 
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their 
agricultural economies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total 
appropriations of $118,230,000. This amount is $10,184,000 less 
than the 2002 level and $17,267,000 more than the budget 
request. This appropriation will support a Public Law 480, 
title I, credit level of $154,664,000 for fiscal year 2003, the 
same as the 2002 level and $22,988,000 more than the budget 
request. The corresponding loan levels, loan subsidy amounts, 
and administrative expenses are reflected in the table above, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget request levels.

        PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $20,277,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,159,000

    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the 
Committee recommends $25,159,000. This is $4,882,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2002 level and $2,841,000 less than the budget 
request.

                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $850,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,185,000,000

    The Committee recognizes the important mission of the 
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; 
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development; 
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets 
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage 
the development of private enterprise and democratic 
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly 
supports the continued efficient operation of this important 
program.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of 
$1,185,000,000. This is $335,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2002 level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee strongly supports programs, including title 
II, that provide humanitarian food assistance throughout the 
world. Commodities and assistance provided through title II are 
one weapon in the U.S. arsenal against world hunger, and the 
Committee believes that a program level of $1,185,000,000 is a 
proper level of support in view of other subcommittee 
priorities for limited direct appropriations. The Committee 
wants to make clear that providing the President's request does 
not overcome a strong disagreement with policies suggested by 
this administration that certain other authorities provided by 
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
notably section 416(b) of said Act, shall not be actively 
pursued toward relieving world hunger, and thereby result in a 
net decrease in U.S. contributions for world food aid. America 
is a land rich in natural resources, the richest among nations, 
and one to which the world's hungry look for relief from 
malnutrition and starvation. Over the past several years, 
employment of the section 416(b) authority has resulted in the 
channeling of substantial surplus commodities to areas of 
intense need. Today, the United States has on hand substantial 
levels of surplus commodities commonly used for humanitarian 
food assistance, and the Committee strongly urges the 
Department to use all available authorities to apply these 
surpluses toward levels necessary to meet targeted world needs.
    The Committee is aware that the administration has recently 
drawn from the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust to supplement 
food assistance needs. While use of this Trust is appropriate 
in the event of emergency conditions for which no alternative 
is available, it is the Committee's belief that the Trust was 
never intended to serve as a substitute for other food 
assistance programs, such as 416(b), and is concerned that 
subsequent transfers of title II funds to replenish the Trust 
will effectively further reduce food assistance resources in 
fiscal year 2003. Accordingly, the Committee expects the 
Secretary to utilize resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to maintain the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
    At this point in history, the U.S.'s world leadership role 
is more important, and under more scrutiny than ever, and the 
Committee firmly believes that this is not the time for this 
country to retreat from its dominant humanitarian role and 
relating contributions toward world stabilization and peace.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee expects the administration to allocate no 
less than 1,875,000 metric tons of the commodities provided 
under Title II to non-emergency programs. Unanticipated 
emergency needs, such as the famine in southern Africa, should 
be met primarily through the section 416b program, the Bill 
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, or emergency appropriations.
    The Committee directs the administration not to place 
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title 
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries, 
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed 
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid 
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program 
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not 
on the level of monetization.
    The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal 
year 2003 to continue the fiscal year 2002 level of funding for 
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
    The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the 
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith 
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to 
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people 
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the 
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of 
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far 
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and 
hospitals.
    As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new 
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7 
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds 
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of 
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This 
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a 
transfer be deemed appropriate.

       COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

             (EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM-102 AND GSM-103)

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Guaranteed loan   Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                 levels            subsidy          expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002......................................     \1\ 3,926,000       \1\ 265,063             4,014
Budget estimate, 2003.....................................     \1\ 4,225,000       \1\ 293,927             4,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

    In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter 
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, 
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales 
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as 
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the 
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period 
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that 
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. 
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will 
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will 
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand 
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide 
financing to those areas where the institutions would be 
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC 
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under 
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit 
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers 
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters 
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S. 
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing 
guarantees.
    In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program 
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as 
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is 
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but 
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold 
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10 
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum 
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the 
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for 
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103 
programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the 
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee 
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance 
appropriations of budget authority according to section 
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for 
administrative expenses.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending 
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) reaffirmed the 
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective 
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor 
products for continued safety after they are in use. In 
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the 
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of 
all regulated products, including food, and improving the 
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
    The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food 
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic 
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and 
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new 
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial 
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in 
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a 
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the 
safest in the world.
    The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate 
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is 
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal 
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are 
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of 
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and 
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention 
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
    The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood 
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, 
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program 
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and 
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and 
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot 
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events 
associated with vaccine immunization.
    The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces 
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. 
Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers 
and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, 
microwave ovens, and video display terminals.
    FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in 
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, 
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the 
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions 
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The 
research is designed to define and understand the biological 
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and 
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, 
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

                         salaries and expenses

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Mammography
                                                        Prescription    clinics      Export and
                                         Appropriation    drug user    inspection  certification       Total
                                                            fees          fees          fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002...................      1,183,670      161,716        15,590         6,181        1,367,157
Budget estimate, 2003..................  \1\ \2\ 1,369  \3\ 222,900        16,112         6,378   \1\ \2\ \3\ 1,
                                                  ,385                                                   614,775
Committee recommendation...............      1,392,814      222,900        16,112         6,378        1,638,204
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $62,569 requested for employee pension and health benefits.
\2\ Includes proposed consolidation of Public Affairs and Legislation offices to HHS and other proposed
  management efficiencies.
\3\ PDUFA total reflects reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act as part of Public Law 107-180.

                       committee recommendations

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,392,814,000. This amount is $209,144,000 
more than the 2002 level and $23,429,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee also recommends $222,900,000 in 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, 
$16,112,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee 
collections, and $6,378,000 in export and certification fees, 
as assumed in the President's budget. These amounts are 
$61,184,000, $522,000, and $197,000 more than the 2002 levels, 
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which 
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any 
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2002 and budget 
request levels:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                  -------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2002 enacted    2003 request   recommendation
                                                                        \1\          \2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
    Foods........................................................      309,853         412,097         415,861
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].....      135,988         148,112         149,312
        Field activities.........................................      173,865         263,985         266,549
            (Food safety initiatives)............................      204,679         394,929         397,432
                                                                  ==============================================
    Human drugs..................................................      245,270         277,317         279,557
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]...........      155,754         176,321         179,176
        Orphan product grants....................................       13,357          14,207          13,357
        Field activities.........................................       76,159          86,789          87,024
        (Food safety initiatives)................................  ............            518             518
                                                                  ==============================================
    Biologics....................................................      119,949         146,849         147,376
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]......       94,000         118,414         118,855
        Field activities.........................................       25,949          28,435          28,521
        (Food safety initiatives)................................  ............          2,826           2,826
                                                                  ==============================================
    Animal drugs.................................................       82,337          88,972          88,919
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].....................       55,541          57,875          57,677
        Field activities.........................................       26,796          31,097          31,242
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
            (Food safety initiatives)............................       17,379          84,141          84,141
                                                                  ==============================================
    Medical and radiological devices.............................      178,655         190,720         199,212
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]........      130,577         137,420         145,764
        Field activities.........................................       48,078          53,300          53,448
        (Food safety initiatives)................................  ............            736             736
                                                                  ==============================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]............       36,903          40,688          40,777
        (Food safety initiatives)................................        3,485           4,688           4,688
                                                                  ==============================================
Other activities.................................................       82,029          77,688          85,738
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
    Office of the Commissioner...................................       12,900          13,466          14,500
    Office of Management and Systems.............................       34,002          40,621          35,358
    Office of Senior Associate Commissioner......................        8,088           4,040           8,322
    Office of International and Constituent Relations............        7,207           7,410           7,462
    Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning..................        7,906           5,659           8,170
    Central services.............................................       11,926           6,492          11,926
        (Food safety initiatives)................................        9,264          14,424          14,424
                                                                  ==============================================
Rent and related activities......................................       29,798          36,498          36,498
                                                                  ==============================================
Rental payments to GSA...........................................       98,876          98,876          98,876
                                                                  ==============================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.....    1,183,670       1,369,385       1,392,814
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects approved reprogramming of fiscal year 2002 funds for UFMS and other management initiatives.
\2\ Excludes $62,569 requested for employee pension and health benefits.
\3\Includes proposed consolidation of public affairs and legislation offices to DHHS and other proposed
  management efficiencies.

    The Committee recommends the following increases in budget 
authority requested in the budget for FDA salaries and expenses 
activities, as follows: $5,000,000 to enhance the 
identification of risks associated with the use of medical 
products and to reduce the occurrence of adverse events; 
$4,582,000 for improvements to the generic drug review program; 
and $152,276,000 to maintain counter terrorism activities 
funded in the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill relating to food safety, safe and effective 
medical products, and physical security, including an increase 
of $1,176,000, as requested in the budget. The Committee also 
recommends a decrease in budget authority requested in the 
budget of $2,578,000 associated with efficiency improvements 
and consolidations of administrative functions.
    The Committee does not recommend a decrease of $7,317,000 
in budget authority to consolidate the FDA Office of Public 
Affairs and the FDA Office of Legislation into the DHHS Office 
of the Secretary. However, the Committee does support the 
Secretary's efforts to streamline and coordinate the activities 
of DHHS agencies to ensure the ability of DHHS to provide 
clear, consistent messages to Congress and the American public.
    The Committee also does not recommend an increase in budget 
authority of $5,200,000 for the DHHS Unified Financial 
Management System. These funds were provided through a 
reprogramming of fiscal year 2002 funds, and are no longer 
necessary as an increase in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $37,861,000 for pay 
parity costs and benefits.
    Rent payments.--The Committee recommends $98,876,000 for 
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA], the same as the 2002 level.
    Food safety.--An increase of $21,561,000 from the fiscal 
year 2002 level is recommended by the Committee for FDA food 
safety activities, bringing total funding for food safety to 
$504,765,000.
    The Committee notes that in recent years, FDA has expanded 
the types of activities it classifies as relating to food 
safety. Prior to fiscal year 2002, the Food Safety Initiative 
definition was limited to activities relating to the 
microbiological safety of foods. This definition was applied 
from the inception of FSI through fiscal year 2001. In fiscal 
year 2002, the definition was expanded to include chemical 
safety of foods and pesticides, premarket review activities, 
activities relating to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and 
activities related to counter-terrorism. In fiscal year 2003, 
FDA has further expanded the definition to include activities 
relating to the safety of dietary supplements.
    Within the total funding available, at least $2,100,000 is 
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
    The Committee provides $2,000,000, an increase of $503,000 
over the fiscal year 2002 level, for FDA to continue its 
contract with New Mexico State University's Physical Science 
Laboratory to operate the Agricultural Products Food Safety 
Laboratory, and to conduct evaluation and development of rapid-
screening methodologies, technologies, instrumentation, and 
data analysis for food safety and product surety to facilitate 
FDA's regulation of food safety, bioterrorism, and other 
initiatives.
    The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for 
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) 
and its work in food safety technology verification and 
education at no less than the fiscal year 2002 level.
    With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public 
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in 
food safety should continue among Government, academia, and 
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has 
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) 
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to 
maintain sufficient funding for the National Center to continue 
the important work done there.
    In addition, the funding provided for food safety will 
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the 
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew 
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food 
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current 
contract became effective on May 23, 2002. It will fund at 
least 300 inspections, approximately 281 seafood/HACCP 
inspections and 19 other food inspections, at a cost of 
approximately $250,776. The establishments to be inspected will 
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
    Seafood Safety.--Two recent General Accounting Office (GAO) 
reports on the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy 
of the FDA efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, 
including shellfish. Both reports found FDA's seafood 
inspection system provides consumers with inadequate protection 
for seafood-related foodborne illness. The Committee urges FDA 
to promote the development of new food safety technologies such 
as irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or 
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of 
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe 
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
    The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate 
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the 
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety 
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. 
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2002 
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to 
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be 
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for 
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
    The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective 
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption 
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned 
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's (ISSC) 
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to 
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may 
not effectively address public health concerns.
    The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's 
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with 
HACCP. However, the Committee is aware that special or unique 
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors. 
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the 
Committee is aware of Hawaii's lengthy and culturally important 
history of hook-and-line fisheries, auction markets, and the 
high consumption of raw tuna and other pelagic fish in Hawaii, 
and believes the agency should take into account both the 
history and the industry's practical experience in approving a 
plan that is consistent with healthy seafood products and 
national standards for seafood safety.
    Omega 3.--The Committee has become aware of new and 
continued research in Circulation (April 9, 2002), the Journal 
of the American Medical Association (April 10, 2002) and the 
New England Journal of Medicine (April 11, 2002) that indicates 
potential positive health benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids in 
the diet. In a previous report to the Committee, the FDA 
concluded that there was no evidence of the value of salmon, 
which is a source of Omega 3 fatty acids, in the diet. Taking 
current research into consideration, the Committee believes the 
FDA should reconsider the health claim that ``Consumption of 
Omega 3 fatty acids in salmon can prevent and reverse heart 
disease'' and report back to the Committee by April 15, 2003.
    Latex Allergies.--The Committee remains concerned about the 
increasing prevalence of latex allergies, which can, in some 
instances, be deadly. The Committee understands that FDA is 
currently studying the incidence of latex allergies related to 
food handling, and will report back to the Committee in August 
on the agency's plan to eliminate exposure to latex from food 
handling, if data currently being reviewed warrants such a 
decision. The Committee looks forward to receiving this report, 
and encourages FDA to take all necessary steps to eliminate 
unnecessary exposure to natural rubber latex.
    The Committee is also aware that DHHS is currently working 
to ensure that health care providers and first responders are 
vaccinated in the event of a public health emergency. The 
Committee applauds this effort. Taking into consideration the 
NIOSH Alert in DHHS Publication No. 97-135, ``Preventing 
Allergic Reactions to Natural Rubber Latex in the Workplace,'' 
which indicates that between 8 percent and 12 percent of the 
exposed health care workforce is allergic to natural rubber 
latex, the Committee encourages the Secretary to ensure that 
all products utilized in these efforts are latex free.
    The Committee is aware that FDA proposed regulations in 
1999 to reclassify all surgeon's and patient examination gloves 
as Class II medical devices. The Committee is further aware 
that the use of some surgeon's and patient examination gloves 
has been associated with a number of adverse health effects, 
including allergic reactions, in patients and users. Therefore, 
the Committee encourages FDA to finalize these proposed 
regulations.
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The 
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial 
Resistance Monitoring Service (NARMS) and its collaborative 
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee 
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas 
of Government to result in the most unbiased presentation of 
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health.
    Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research is $13,357,000 for the Orphan Products 
Grants Program. This is the same as the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Dietary Supplements.--The Committee believes that the 
potential for dietary supplements to have positive health 
benefits has been realized in many cases. However, it is 
essential that FDA continue its efforts to ensure their safety, 
and to fully enforce the prohibition of false, misleading or 
unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary supplements 
implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act 
(DSHEA) of 1994. The budget request includes total funding of 
$5,600,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting System 
(CAERS), of which approximately $1,500,000 is for dietary 
supplements. The Committee provides an increase of $2,000,000 
for CAERS, bringing total funding to $7,600,000. These funds 
are to be used to ensure prompt identification of and response 
to adverse health events related to foods, including dietary 
supplements.
    FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze 
specific components in ingredients, including botanical 
ingredients, is an essential component of research and 
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and 
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 to 
continue the review of botanicals in dietary supplements. This 
work is being carried out by FDA in collaboration with the 
National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, MS.
    Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA 
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA 
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on 
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing 
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process 
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology 
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for 
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee 
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency 
representatives may perform this service.
    Blood product safety.--The Committee remains concerned FDA 
has not moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to 
require manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and 
prompt patient notification of adverse events. The Committee 
urges FDA to complete implementation of this important blood 
product safety mechanism and requests quarterly reports on its 
progress.
    Blood Safety and Adequacy.--The Committee is aware of 
several factors that have affected that Nation's blood supply, 
including a recently implemented FDA deferral policy which 
restricts eligibility of blood donors who have traveled or 
lived in Europe or the United Kingdom because of the 
theoretical risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. The 
Committee is concerned about existing blood shortages, and the 
possibility of increasingly severe shortages in the future 
because of the elimination of blood donors, confusion about 
donor criteria, and the potential loss of up to 25 percent of 
the U.S. military donor base. The Committee understands that 
additional FDA donor restrictions will become effective October 
31, 2002.
    The Committee believes that maintaining an adequate blood 
supply is critical for the Nation's public health and is 
essential for national preparedness in the event of public 
health emergencies. The Committee urges that FDA and the 
Department of Health and Human Services to address this issue 
and consider the potential need for modification of donor 
deferral criteria or other measures if serious blood shortages 
continue.
    Generic Drugs.--The Committee is deeply concerned about the 
high cost of prescription drugs, and believes that generic 
drugs play an important role in the reduction of these costs. 
Prompt approval of generic drug applications is imperative to 
making generic drugs available at the earliest possible date to 
American consumers. Latest statistics, however, indicate that 
it currently takes 18.4 months, on average, for a generic drug 
application to be reviewed by FDA. Therefore, the Committee is 
providing $45,282,000 for the generic drugs program, an 
increase of $6,082,000 over the fiscal year 2002 level, and 
$1,500,000 more than the budget request. The Committee expects 
that this increase will result in more than 75 percent of 
generic drug applications being reviewed within 6 months of 
submission.
    Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the 
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of 
milk protein concentrate. A recent General Accounting Office 
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein 
concentrate imports. The Committee is concerned with FDA's 
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it 
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein 
concentrate in standardized cheese.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it 
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are 
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee 
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health 
at FDA is funded at approximately $3,000,000 for program 
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure 
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to 
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if 
necessary.
    Orange Book.--The Committee is aware of the contributions 
of pharmaceutical products to public health and the high cost 
of product development, but is extremely concerned about the 
high cost of prescription drugs to American consumers, and is 
aware that generic drugs, once they reach the marketplace, are 
available to consumers at a significantly lower cost than the 
original drug. The FDA maintains a listing of ``Approved Drug 
Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' also known 
as the ``Orange Book.'' Patent information for approved drugs 
submitted to the FDA are listed and published in this book. FDA 
has indicated to the Committee that FDA intends to commence a 
process of providing guidance in the near future on patents 
which it believes should and should not be listed in the Orange 
Book. The Committee is supportive, and encourages the Secretary 
to work with the pharmaceutical and generic industries in this 
effort. The Committee requests a report on these activities by 
January 15, 2003.
    Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is aware 
that for the last several years, premarket approval 
applications for breakthrough medical technologies have taken 
more than a year, despite the 180-day statutory maximum for 
approval or denial of such applications. Specifically, it is 
the Committee's understanding that the average length of time 
for medical device premarket reviews is currently over 400 
days. Moreover, the medical technology industry has doubled the 
investment in research and development in the last decade, and 
FDA has stated that device technology advances and global 
impact will continue to affect review performance. In addition, 
FDA has stated that submissions are becoming increasingly more 
complex, also contributing to review performance. Therefore, 
the Committee provides an increase of $8,000,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 level for activities relating to premarket 
reviews of medical devices. These funds are to be used solely 
for premarket review activities, with the intention of 
decreasing review times. The Committee directs the FDA to 
provide a report within 90 days of the enactment of this Act on 
how these funds will be obligated, including the number of 
employees that will be hired, a description of their duties, 
and the effect these funds will have on premarket review times 
for medical devices.
    Reused Medical Devices.--The Committee recognizes the 
important role that FDA plays in ensuring that every medical 
device used on a patient in the United States is both safe and 
effective for its intended use. Adhering to this principle, the 
FDA has issued new guidance for the reprocessing of single-use 
medical devices. The Committee is concerned that the FDA may 
consider allowing a single premarket submission for 
reprocessing of multiple models of a certain medical devices. 
FDA's own research indicates that minor modifications to a 
device can substantially alter the device's properties with 
regard to sterilization and reprocessing. This was stated by 
FDA's own scientists at the 1999 AAMI/FDA Conference entitled 
``The reuse of single-use devices.'' Therefore, the Committee 
urges the FDA to require a premarket submission for every model 
that is to be reprocessed, if an application was required for 
the original manufactured device.
    Implanted Medical Devices.--The Committee acknowledges the 
FDA's final rule to improve post-market surveillance for 
medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA to devote the 
necessary resources to require registries and monitor well-
designed long-term safety studies for implanted devices, 
including but not limited to jaw implants. As the aging U.S. 
population becomes more dependent on implanted devices, the 
Committee believes it is essential that the FDA allocate 
adequate resources to patient safety activities related to 
these devices, such as registries, post-market surveillance, 
and long-term phase IV trials.
    Adverse Events Reporting System.--The Committee is 
concerned about the lack of oversight over reprocessed medical 
devices when they fail. The General Accounting Office reported 
that the incidence of failure was unknown. This may be in part 
due to the fact that FDA's adverse reporting system used by 
health professionals does not capture data on whether a 
defective device has been reprocessed. The MEDWATCH system 
includes on its mandatory reporting form a box for the 
identification of whether a defective device was or was not 
reprocessed. The voluntary reporting form, however, does not 
allow for such reporting. The Committee strongly encourages the 
agency to update the voluntary reporting form to allow for the 
identification of whether a defective device has been 
reprocessed, and if it has been reprocessed, information on how 
many times the device has been reused.
    Tissue Safety.--The Committee remains concerned about the 
safety of tissue processing. FDA first initiated oversight of 
tissue by regulation in 1993. Since then, additional safety 
concerns have led FDA to publish the ``Proposed Approach to the 
Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products'' on February 
28, 1997. Since 1997, FDA has proposed three new regulations to 
deal with registration of tissue processors and the listing of 
their products, donor suitability and good manufacturing 
practice. Only one of these three proposed rules, relating to 
registration and listing, has been finalized. The Committee is 
concerned that FDA still has not finalized the donor 
suitability and good manufacturing practices rules. The urgency 
of establishing new safety rules has been highlighted by the 
unfortunate death of one young person due to contaminated 
tissue. Therefore, the Committee directs the agency to finalize 
the tissue safety rules within 9 months of the enactment of 
this Act.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $34,281,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,000,000

    In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are 
in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other 
locations around the country, including regular field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, 
modifications, improvements and construction to FDA 
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the 
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program 
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory 
methods up to date.

                       committee recommendations

    For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and 
facilities, the Committee recommends $11,000,000. This amount 
is $23,281,000 less than the 2002 appropriation and $3,000,000 
more than the budget request.
    Included in the amount provided is $8,000,000 for repair 
and improvement projects, and $3,000,000 to complete renovation 
of the National Center for Toxicology Research.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $70,700,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      79,884,000
Committee recommendation................................      94,435,000

\1\ Excludes $2,916,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was 
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
    The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal 
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, 
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage 
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise 
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading 
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure 
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
    The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the 
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by 
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and 
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade 
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the 
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing 
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance. 
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity 
options markets contribute toward better production and 
financial planning, more efficient distribution and 
consumption, and more economical marketing.
    Programs in support of the overall mission include market 
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and 
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal 
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services. 
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional 
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in 
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
recommends $94,435,000. The amount provided is $23,735,000 more 
than the 2002 appropriation and $14,551,000 more than the 
budget request. This amount includes $6,611,000 for pay parity 
costs and benefits.
    The Committee is aware that the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 exempted CFTC from the salary 
restrictions imposed by Title V of the United States Code. The 
Committee is also aware that Title V pay restrictions have 
historically been a significant factor in CFTC's high turnover 
rate, nearly triple the government average, among attorneys and 
economists, which are the Commission's two largest occupational 
series. The Committee has been informed that this high 
attrition rate impedes the Commission's ability to develop and 
sustain a cadre of legal and financial professionals necessary 
to detect, prosecute, and deter fraud in the expanding and 
complex financial markets. Therefore, the Committee is 
providing $15,915,000 for CFTC to provide compensation and 
benefits comparable to other Federal financial regulators, or 
other program costs, if necessary. It is the Committee's 
understanding that CFTC is currently developing a plan to 
implement pay comparability with other Federal financial 
regulators, and the Committee requests a full report on these 
activities, including their effect on the CFTC attrition rate, 
quarterly.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 2002........................................     $36,700,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................      36,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,404,000

\1\ Excludes $1,796,000 requested for employee pension and health 
benefits.

    The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent 
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible 
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations, 
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
    Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the 
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System 
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA 
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and 
approves certain actions of the institutions.
    The administration and the institutions under its 
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the 
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December 
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985, 
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and 
enforcement powers.
    The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to 
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, 
and associations and other entities upon which farming 
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit 
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the 
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural 
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under 
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is 
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and 
assuring its safe and sound operation.
    Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by 
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions 
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $38,404,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. This is $1,704,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 level 
and the budget request.
    The Committee recommends an increase in the limitation of 
FCA's administrative expenses for two reasons. First, it is the 
Committee's understanding that pending a study scheduled to be 
completed this summer, the FCA may be unable to comply with a 
statute requiring it to provide employees with comparable 
compensation to other Federal financial regulatory agencies. 
Second, the FCA is facing the potential loss of many seasoned 
examiners and other employees through retirement. There is a 
need to hire up to an additional 13 examiners to prevent a loss 
that could significantly strain FCA's ability to effectively 
carry out its financial safety and soundness examination and 
enforcement functions. It is the Committee's understanding that 
this increase in FCA's limitation on administrative expenses 
will not result in an increase in the amount of the assessments 
on system institutions. The Committee requests a report on the 
outcome of studies currently underway related to this increase, 
including the actual limitation amount necessary, the amount of 
carryover funds in FCA's reserve, and the change, if any, in 
the amount of the assessments on system institutions.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701-731 of the general provisions are essentially 
the same as those included in the fiscal year 2002 and previous 
years' appropriations acts.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following 
provisions:
    Section 732 to provide eligibility for rural development 
programs to certain communities.
    Section 733 to provide assistance through the Rural Housing 
Assistance Grants program for agriculture processing workers in 
the State of Wisconsin.
    Section 734 to provide eligibility for conservation 
projects in the State of Illinois.
    Section 735 to establish an assessment on certain research 
grant awards which will provide additional for funding for 
activities carried out pursuant to section 401 of the 
Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621).
    Section 736 to provide eligibility for a conservation 
program in the State of West Virginia.
    Section 737 to allow a reimbursement to the USDA Office of 
General Counsel from salaries and expenses accounts of agencies 
for which the General Counsel will provide certain services, 
subject to prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House and the Senate.
    Section 738 to provide a limitation of funds to carry out 
section 2505 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 739 to provide a limitation of funds to carry out 
section 6030 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 740 to provide a limitation of funds to carry out 
section 6405 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 741 to provide a limitation of funds to carry out 
section 9010 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 742 to provide eligibility for a conservation 
program in the State of Arkansas.
    Section 743 to provide eligibility for a conservation 
program in the State of Alaska.
    Section 744 to provide direction in the implementation of 
the Food for Progress program.
    Section 745 to provide $6,000,000 for grants made available 
in accordance with section 7412 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 746 to place a limitation on funds in regard to the 
Maritime Administration and programs authorized under 7 U.S.C. 
1736f-1.
    Section 747 to extend and expand participation in the 
Summer Food Pilot projects.
    Section 748 to establish certain authorities regarding the 
Denali Commission.
    Section 749 to rescind funds to carry out the Rural Clean 
Water program.
    Section 750 to establish a program for loans and grants 
related to the dairy industry in the State of Alaska.
    Section 751 to allow the Secretary to transfer up to 
$2,000,000 from the Food and Nutrition Service to the Economic 
Research Service for studies and evaluations on behalf of the 
Food and Nutrition Service.
    Section 752 to complete the project regarding the John 
Ogonowski farm in a manner consistent with the rules and 
regulations of the Farmland Protection Program. Because of the 
strong national demand for Farmland Protection Program funds 
and the need to provide full access to Program funds 
nationally, the Committee directs the Secretary to carry out 
the project without providing additional funding under the 
Program for projects in the State of Massachusetts.
    Section 753 to authorize Department of Agriculture 
employees to carry firearms for personal protection in remote 
locations that may be populated by bears and other dangerous 
wildlife.
    Section 754 to provide funds made available under section 
6022 of Public Law 107-171 for the Northeast Higher Education 
District, Albert Lea, Crookston and Granite Falls, MN.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2003, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following 
information provides the definition of the term ``program, 
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2003, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2003 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to 
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support 
of the fiscal year 2003 budget estimates, as amended, for such 
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action, 
and in addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports 
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each 
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2003:
    Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 25, 2002, 
the Committee ordered reported en bloc, S. 2801, an original 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Programs Appropriations bill, 2003; 
S. 0000 deg. an original District of Columbia 
Appropriations bill, 2003; S. 0000 deg. an original 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2003; 
and S. 2797, an original Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, 
2003, each subject to amendment and each subject to the budget 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
    With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the 
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these 
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003:
 Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and
 Related Agencies:
    Discretionary.....................................         17,980        17,980         18,273    \2\ 18,013
    Mandatory.........................................             NA        56,681             NA        38,389
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2003..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \3\ 47,474
    2004..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        5,795
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          928
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          482
    2007 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............          608
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA        21,602             NA        17,884
 for  2003............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levels approved by the Committee on June 27, as modified on July 25, 2002.
\2\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2003
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
                                                                                                                                  -)
             Item                     2002              Budget        House allowance      Committee    -----------------------------------------------------
                                  appropriation   estimate        deg.         recommendation         2002              Budget            House
                                                                                                           appropriation   estimate  allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

  Production, Processing, and
           Marketing

Office of the Secretary.......            2,992             36,667             3,444              +452           -33,223
    Emergency appropriations             80,919   .................  ................          -80,919   ................
     (Public Law 107-117).....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the               83,911             36,667             3,444           -80,467           -33,223
       Secretary..............

Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist...........            7,704             12,117            12,085            +4,381               -32
    National Appeals Division.           12,869             14,334            13,954            +1,085              -380
    Office of Budget and                  7,041              7,358             7,310              +269               -48
     Program Analysis.........
    Office of the Chief                  10,029             31,277            31,370           +21,341               +93
     Information Officer......
        Common computing                 59,369            133,155           133,155           +73,786   ................
         environment..........
    Office of the Chief                   5,384              7,918             7,940            +2,556               +22
     Financial Officer........
    Working capital fund......  ................            21,000            21,000           +21,000   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive                  102,396            227,159           226,814          +124,418              -345
       Operations.............

Office of the Assistant                     647                780               788              +141                +8
 Secretary for Administration.
Office of the Assistant         ................  .................              780              +780              +780
 Secretary for Civil Rights...
Agriculture buildings and              (187,647)           (70,499)         (197,753)         (+10,106)        (+127,254)
 facilities and rental
 payments.....................
    Payments to GSA...........          130,266   .................          130,266   ................         +130,266
    Building operations and              31,438             36,522            33,510            +2,072            -3,012
     maintenance..............
    Repairs, renovations, and            25,943             33,977            33,977            +8,034   ................
     construction.............
Hazardous materials management           15,665             15,685            15,694               +29                +9
Departmental administration...           37,079             46,398            42,840            +5,761            -3,558
Outreach for socially                     3,243              3,243             3,493              +250              +250
 disadvantaged farmers........
Office of the Assistant                   3,718              4,157             4,202              +484               +45
 Secretary for Congressional
 Relations....................
Office of Communications......            8,894              9,637             9,744              +850              +107
Office of the Inspector                  70,839             82,231            79,076            +8,237            -3,155
 General......................
Office of the General Counsel.           32,627             37,287            35,951            +3,324            -1,336
Office of the Under Secretary               573                780               786              +213                +6
 for Research, Education and
 Economics....................
Economic Research Service.....           67,200             79,243            65,736            -1,464           -13,507
National Agricultural                   113,786            143,659           141,703           +27,917            -1,956
 Statistics Service...........
    Census of Agriculture.....          (25,350)           (41,578)          (41,434)         (+16,084)            (-144)

Agricultural Research Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....          979,464            971,445         1,060,785           +81,321           +89,340
        Emergency                        40,000   .................  ................          -40,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 107-117).
    Buildings and facilities..          118,987             16,580           100,955           -18,032           +84,375
        Emergency                        73,000   .................  ................          -73,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 107-117).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Agricultural         1,211,451            988,025         1,161,740           -49,711          +173,715
           Research Service...

Cooperative State Research,
 Education, and Extension
 Service:
    Research and education              542,062            552,549           611,729           +69,667           +59,180
     activities...............
    Native American                      (7,100)            (7,100)           (7,100)  ................  ................
     Institutions Endowment
     Fund.....................
    Extension activities......          439,473            419,989           452,943           +13,470           +32,954
    Integrated activities.....           42,853             44,865           108,218           +65,365           +63,353
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State        1,024,388          1,017,403         1,172,890          +148,502          +155,487
       Research, Education,
       and Extension Service..

Office of the Under Secretary               654                780               788              +134                +8
 for Marketing and Regulatory
 Programs.....................

Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....          620,490            767,119           735,673          +115,183           -31,446
        Emergency                       105,000   .................  ................         -105,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 107-117).
    AQI user fees.............          (84,813)  .................  ................         (-84,813)  ................
    Animal welfare user fees    ................            -5,000   ................  ................           +5,000
     (proposed)...............
    Buildings and facilities..            7,189             13,189            13,189            +6,000   ................
        Emergency                        14,081   .................  ................          -14,081   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 107-117).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Animal and             746,760            775,308           748,862            +2,102           -26,446
           Plant Health
           Inspection Service.

Agricultural Marketing
 Service:
    Marketing Services........           71,430             75,411            75,824            +4,394              +413
        Standardization user             (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
         fees.................
    (Limitation on                      (60,596)           (61,619)          (61,619)          (+1,023)  ................
     administrative expenses,
     from fees collected).....
    Funds for strengthening              13,995             14,910            14,910              +915   ................
     markets, income, and
     supply (transfer from
     section 32)..............
    Payments to states and                1,347              1,347             1,347   ................  ................
     possessions..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural                86,772             91,668            92,081            +5,309              +413
       Marketing Service......

Grain Inspection, Packers and
 Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses.....           33,117             41,164            44,746           +11,629            +3,582
    Limitation on inspection            (42,463)           (42,463)          (42,463)  ................  ................
     and weighing services....
    Inspection and licensing    ................           -29,000   ................  ................          +29,000
     user fees (proposed).....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Grain Inspection,           33,117             12,164            44,746           +11,629           +32,582
       Packers and Stockyards.


Office of the Under Secretary               476                780               785              +309                +5
 for Food Safety..............
Food Safety and Inspection              715,642            763,049           766,608           +50,966            +3,559
 Service......................
    Emergency appropriations             15,000   .................  ................          -15,000   ................
     (Public Law 107-117).....
    Lab accreditation fees \1\           (1,000)            (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Production,              4,562,485          4,406,602         4,817,304          +254,819          +410,702
       Processing, and
       Marketing..............
                               =========================================================================================================================
   Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary               606                899               906              +300                +7
 for Farm and Foreign
 Agricultural Services........

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses.....          939,030            993,620           997,378           +58,348            +3,758

    (Transfer from export                  (790)              (834)             (834)             (+44)  ................
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law              (972)            (1,026)           (1,026)             (+54)  ................
     480).....................
    (Transfer from ACIF)......         (272,595)          (279,176)         (279,176)          (+6,581)  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, transfers from         (274,357)          (281,036)         (281,036)          (+6,679)  ................
       program accounts.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and            (1,213,387)        (1,274,656)       (1,278,414)         (+65,027)          (+3,758)
       expenses...............

    Emergency conservation      ................            48,700   ................  ................          -48,700
     program..................
    State mediation grants....            3,493              4,000             4,000              +507   ................
    Dairy indemnity program...              100                100               100   ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service            942,623          1,046,420         1,001,478           +58,855           -44,942
       Agency.................

    Agricultural Credit
     Insurance Fund Program
     Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........         (146,996)          (100,000)         (146,996)  ................         (+46,996)
                Guaranteed....       (1,000,000)        (1,000,000)       (1,000,000)  ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (1,146,996)        (1,100,000)       (1,146,996)  ................         (+46,996)

            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........         (611,198)          (600,000)         (611,198)  ................         (+11,198)
                Unsubsidized         (1,500,000)        (1,700,000)       (1,700,000)        (+200,000)  ................
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized             (505,531)          (300,000)         (505,531)  ................        (+205,531)
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (2,616,729)        (2,600,000)       (2,816,729)        (+200,000)        (+216,729)

            Indian tribe land            (2,000)            (2,000)           (2,000)  ................  ................
             acquisition loans
            Emergency disaster          (25,000)  .................  ................         (-25,000)  ................
             loans............
            Boll weevil                (100,000)          (100,000)         (100,000)  ................  ................
             eradication loans
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (3,890,725)        (3,802,000)       (4,065,725)        (+175,000)        (+263,725)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........            3,866             11,610            17,066           +13,200            +5,456
                Guaranteed....            4,500              7,500             7,500            +3,000   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....            8,366             19,110            24,566           +16,200            +5,456

            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........           54,580            103,560           105,493           +50,913            +1,933
                Unsubsidized             52,650             53,890            53,890            +1,240   ................
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized               68,550             35,400            59,653            -8,897           +24,253
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....          175,780            192,850           219,036           +43,256           +26,186

            Indian tribe land               118                179               179               +61   ................
             acquisition......
            Emergency disaster            3,363   .................  ................           -3,363   ................
             loans............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               187,627            212,139           243,781           +56,154           +31,642
               subsidies......

        ACIF expenses:
            Salaries and                272,595            279,176           279,176            +6,581   ................
             expense (transfer
             to FSA)..........
            Administrative                8,000              8,000             8,000   ................  ................
             expenses.........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF               280,595            287,176           287,176            +6,581   ................
               expenses.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total,                    468,222            499,315           530,957           +62,735           +31,642
               Agricultural
               Credit
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (3,890,725)        (3,802,000)       (4,065,725)        (+175,000)        (+263,725)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
              Total, Farm             1,410,845          1,545,735         1,532,435          +121,590           -13,300
               Service Agency.
                               =========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency........           74,752             72,771            71,228            -3,524            -1,543
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance          1,486,203          1,619,405         1,604,569          +118,366           -14,836
       Programs...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
         Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance
 Corporation:
    Federal crop insurance            2,900,000          2,886,000         2,886,165           -13,835              +165
     corporation fund.........
Commodity Credit Corporation
 Fund:
    Reimbursement for net            20,279,000         16,285,000        16,285,000        -3,994,000   ................
     realized losses..........
    Hazardous waste management           (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
     (limitation on
     administrative expenses).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Corporations.....       23,179,000         19,171,000        19,171,165        -4,007,835              +165
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title I,                29,227,688         25,197,007        25,593,038        -3,634,650          +396,031
       Agricultural Programs..
          (By transfer).......         (274,357)          (281,036)         (281,036)          (+6,679)  ................
          (Loan authorization)       (3,890,725)        (3,802,000)       (4,065,725)        (+175,000)        (+263,725)
    (Limitation on                     (108,059)          (109,082)         (109,082)          (+1,023)  ................
     administrative expenses).
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE II--CONSERVATION
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               730                902               911              +181                +9
 for Natural Resources and
 Environment..................

Natural Resources Conservation
 Service:
    Conservation operations...          779,000            840,963           846,963           +67,963            +6,000
    Watershed surveys and                10,960   .................           10,960   ................          +10,960
     planning.................
    Watershed and flood                 106,590   .................          105,000            -1,590          +105,000
     prevention operations....
    Emergency watershed         ................           110,000   ................  ................         -110,000
     protection...............
    Watershed rehabilitation             10,000   .................           30,000           +20,000           +30,000
     program..................
    Resource conservation and            48,048             49,079            50,378            +2,330            +1,299
     development..............
    Forestry incentives                   6,811   .................  ................           -6,811   ................
     program..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources          961,409          1,000,042         1,043,301           +81,892           +43,259
       Conservation Service...
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title II,                  962,139          1,000,944         1,044,212           +82,073           +43,268
       Conservation Programs..
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               623                898               906              +283                +8
 for Rural Development........

Rural Development:
    Rural community                     806,557            791,499           867,176           +60,619           +75,677
     advancement program......
    (Transfer out)............         (-24,000)  .................         (-30,000)          (-6,000)         (-30,000)

    RD expenses:
        Salaries and expenses.          133,722            145,736           133,956              +234           -11,780

        (Transfer from RHIF)..         (422,241)          (455,630)         (455,630)         (+33,389)  ................
        (Transfer from RDLFP).           (3,733)            (4,290)           (4,290)            (+557)  ................
        (Transfer from RETLP).          (36,000)           (38,035)          (38,035)          (+2,035)  ................
        (Transfer from RTB)...           (3,082)            (3,082)           (3,082)  ................  ................
        (Transfer from TLP)...           (2,000)  .................  ................          (-2,000)  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Transfers          (467,056)          (501,037)         (501,037)         (+33,981)  ................
           from program
           accounts...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses..         (600,778)          (646,773)         (634,993)         (+34,215)         (-11,780)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                  940,279            937,235         1,001,132           +60,853           +63,897
           Development........
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance
     Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family            (1,079,848)          (957,300)       (1,005,162)         (-74,686)         (+47,862)
             (sec. 502).......
                Unsubsidized         (3,137,968)        (2,750,000)       (2,750,000)        (-387,968)  ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (4,217,816)        (3,707,300)       (3,755,162)        (-462,654)         (+47,862)
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair              (32,324)           (35,000)          (35,000)          (+2,676)  ................
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing             (114,068)           (60,000)         (120,000)          (+5,932)         (+60,000)
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.             (5,090)            (5,000)           (5,000)             (-90)  ................
             524).............
            Multi-family                (99,770)          (100,000)  ................         (-99,770)        (-100,000)
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                 (1,778)            (2,000)           (2,000)            (+222)  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family               (10,000)           (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing            (5,000)            (5,011)           (5,011)             (+11)  ................
             land development
             fund.............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (4,485,846)        (3,924,311)       (3,932,173)        (-553,673)          (+7,862)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family               142,108            185,429           194,700           +52,592            +9,271
             (sec. 502).......
                Unsubsidized             40,166             19,800            19,800           -20,366   ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,             182,274            205,229           214,500           +32,226            +9,271
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair               10,386             10,857            10,857              +471   ................
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing               48,274             27,978            55,956            +7,682           +27,978
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.                 28                 55                55               +27   ................
             524).............
            Multi-family                  3,921              4,500   ................           -3,921            -4,500
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                    750                934               934              +184   ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family       ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing               254                221               221               -33   ................
             land development
             fund.............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               245,887            249,774           282,523           +36,636           +32,749
               subsidies......

        RHIF administrative             422,241            455,630           455,630           +33,389   ................
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................

        Rental assistance
         program:
            (Sec. 521)........          695,104            706,100           718,000           +22,896           +11,900
            (Sec.                         5,900              5,900            12,000            +6,100            +6,100
             502(c)(5)(D))....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental             701,004            712,000           730,000           +28,996           +18,000
               assistance
               program........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rural            1,369,132          1,417,404         1,468,153           +99,021           +50,749
               Housing
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (4,485,846)        (3,924,311)       (3,932,173)        (-553,673)          (+7,862)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help                 35,000             34,000            35,000   ................           +1,000
     housing grants...........
    Rural housing assistance             38,914             42,498            47,498            +8,584            +5,000
     grants...................
    Farm labor program account           31,431             34,615            34,615            +3,184   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and              105,345            111,113           117,113           +11,768            +6,000
       payments...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Housing            1,474,477          1,528,517         1,585,266          +110,789           +56,749
       Service................
          (Loan authorization)       (4,485,846)        (3,924,311)       (3,932,173)        (-553,673)          (+7,862)
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative
 Service:
    Rural Development Loan
     Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (38,171)           (40,000)          (40,000)          (+1,829)  ................
        Loan subsidy..........           16,494             19,304            19,304            +2,810   ................
        Administrative                    3,733              4,290             4,290              +557   ................
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                   20,227             23,594            23,594            +3,367   ................
           Development Loan
           Fund...............

    Rural Economic Development
     Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (14,966)           (14,967)          (14,967)              (+1)  ................
        Direct subsidy........            3,616              3,197             3,197              -419   ................
    Rural cooperative                     7,750              9,000             9,000            +1,250   ................
     development grants.......
    Rural empowerment zones              14,967   .................           14,967   ................          +14,967
     and enterprise
     communities grants.......
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Business-             46,560             35,791            50,758            +4,198           +14,967
       Cooperative Service....
          (Loan authorization)          (53,137)           (54,967)          (54,967)          (+1,830)  ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and
     Telecommunications Loans
     Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5              (121,107)          (121,103)         (121,103)              (-4)  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                (500,000)          (100,000)         (100,000)        (-400,000)  ................
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Direct, FFB...       (2,600,000)        (1,600,000)       (2,600,000)  ................      (+1,000,000)
                Direct,                (750,000)          (700,000)       (1,150,000)        (+400,000)        (+450,000)
                 Treasury rate
                Guaranteed             (100,000)          (100,000)         (100,000)  ................  ................
                 electric.....
                Guaranteed      ................  .................       (1,000,000)      (+1,000,000)      (+1,000,000)
                 underwriting.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (4,071,107)        (2,621,103)       (5,071,103)        (+999,996)      (+2,450,000)
                   Electric...


            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5               (74,827)           (75,029)          (75,029)            (+202)  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                (300,000)          (300,000)         (300,000)  ................  ................
                 Treasury rate
                Direct, FFB...         (120,000)          (120,000)         (120,000)  ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,            (494,827)          (495,029)         (495,029)            (+202)  ................
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan        (4,565,934)        (3,116,132)       (5,566,132)      (+1,000,198)      (+2,450,000)
                   authorizati
                   ons........

        Loan subsidies:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5                 3,609              6,915             6,915            +3,306   ................
                 percent......
                Direct,         ................             4,030             4,030            +4,030   ................
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Guaranteed                   80                 80                80   ................  ................
                 electric.....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,               3,689             11,025            11,025            +7,336   ................
                   Electric...


            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5                 1,736              1,283             1,283              -453   ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                     300                150               150              -150   ................
                 Treasury rate
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,               2,036              1,433             1,433              -603   ................
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan             5,725             12,458            12,458            +6,733   ................
                   subsidies..

        RETLP administrative             36,000             38,035            38,035            +2,035   ................
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                   41,725             50,493            50,493            +8,768   ................
           Electrification and
           Telecommunications
           Loans Program
           Account............
              (Loan                  (4,565,934)        (3,116,132)       (5,566,132)      (+1,000,198)      (+2,450,000)
               authorization).
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank
     Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..         (174,615)  .................         (174,615)  ................        (+174,615)
        Direct loan subsidy...            3,737   .................            2,410            -1,327            +2,410
        RTB administrative                3,082              3,082             3,082   ................  ................
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                    6,819              3,082             5,492            -1,327            +2,410
           Telephone Bank
           Program Account....

    High energy costs grants            (24,000)  .................          (30,000)          (+6,000)         (+30,000)
     (by transfer)............

    Distance learning and
     telemedicine program:
        (Loan authorization)..         (380,000)          (129,535)         (129,535)        (-250,465)  ................
        Grants/loans subsidy             49,441             31,049            51,941            +2,500           +20,892
         costs................

    Local Television Loan
     Guarantee Program
     Account:
        (Loan authorization)..         (258,065)  .................  ................        (-258,065)  ................
        Direct loan subsidy...           20,000   .................  ................          -20,000   ................
        LTLP administration               2,000   .................  ................           -2,000   ................
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Local                   22,000   .................  ................          -22,000   ................
           Television Loan
           Program Account....
                               =========================================================================================================================
          Total, Rural                  119,985             84,624           107,926           -12,059           +23,302
           Utilities Service..
              (Loan                  (5,378,614)        (3,245,667)       (5,870,282)        (+491,668)      (+2,624,615)
               authorization).
                               =========================================================================================================================
          Total, title III,           2,581,924          2,587,065         2,745,988          +164,064          +158,923
           Rural Economic and
           Community
           Development
           Programs...........
              (By transfer)...         (491,056)          (501,037)         (531,037)         (+39,981)         (+30,000)
              (Loan                  (9,917,597)        (7,224,945)       (9,857,422)         (-60,175)      (+2,632,477)
               authorization).
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               587                774               781              +194                +7
 for Food, Nutrition and
 Consumer Services............

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs..        4,914,288          5,382,179         5,830,506          +916,218          +448,327
        Transfer from section         5,172,458          5,193,990         4,745,663          -426,795          -448,327
         32...................
        Discretionary spending              500   .................            4,000            +3,500            +4,000
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child               10,087,246         10,576,169        10,580,169          +492,923            +4,000
           nutrition programs.

    Special supplemental              4,348,000          4,751,000         4,751,000          +403,000   ................
     nutrition program for
     women, infants, and
     children (WIC)...........
        Emergency                        39,000   .................  ................          -39,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 107-117).

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses..............       19,556,436         22,772,692        22,772,692        +3,216,256   ................
        Reserve...............        2,000,000          2,000,000         2,000,000   ................  ................
        Nutrition assistance          1,335,550          1,377,000         1,377,000           +41,450   ................
         for Puerto Rico......
        The emergency food              100,000            100,000           140,000           +40,000           +40,000
         assistance program...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp          22,991,986         26,249,692        26,289,692        +3,297,706           +40,000
           program............

    Commodity assistance                152,813            144,991           167,000           +14,187           +22,009
     program..................
        Rescission............           -3,300   .................  ................           +3,300   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity              149,513            144,991           167,000           +17,487           +22,009
           assistance program.

    Food donations programs:
        Needy family program..            1,081              1,081             1,081   ................  ................
        Elderly feeding                 149,668   .................  ................         -149,668   ................
         program..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food                   150,749              1,081             1,081          -149,668   ................
           donations programs.

    Food program                        127,546            147,944           138,142           +10,596            -9,802
     administration...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and                37,894,040         41,870,877        41,927,084        +4,033,044           +56,207
       Nutrition Service......
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,               37,894,627         41,871,651        41,927,865        +4,033,238           +56,214
       Domestic Food Programs.
                               =========================================================================================================================
  TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
     AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:
    Salaries and expenses,              121,813            131,668           131,938           +10,125              +270
     direct appropriation.....
    (Transfer from export                (3,224)            (3,224)           (3,224)  ................  ................
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law            (1,033)            (1,033)           (1,033)  ................  ................
     480).....................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program level....         (126,070)          (135,925)         (136,195)         (+10,125)            (+270)
                               =========================================================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and
 Grant Accounts:
    Program account:
        Loan authorization,            (154,664)          (131,676)         (154,664)  ................         (+22,988)
         direct...............
        Loan subsidies........          126,409             98,904           116,171           -10,238           +17,267
        Ocean freight                    20,277             28,000            25,159            +4,882            -2,841
         differential grants..

    Title II--Commodities for
     disposition abroad:
        Program level.........         (850,000)        (1,185,000)       (1,185,000)        (+335,000)  ................
        Appropriation.........          850,000          1,185,000         1,185,000          +335,000   ................

    Salaries and expenses:
        Foreign Agricultural              1,033              1,033             1,033   ................  ................
         Service (transfer to
         FAS).................
        Farm Service Agency                 972              1,026             1,026               +54   ................
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............            2,005              2,059             2,059               +54   ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
          Total, Public Law
           480:
              Program level...         (850,000)        (1,185,000)       (1,185,000)        (+335,000)  ................
              Appropriation...          998,691          1,313,963         1,328,389          +329,698           +14,426
                               =========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
 Account (administrative
 expenses):
    Salaries and expenses
     (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager             3,224              3,224             3,224   ................  ................
         (transfer to FAS)....
        Farm Service Agency                 790                834               834               +44   ................
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export               4,014              4,058             4,058               +44   ................
           Loans Program
           Account............
                               =========================================================================================================================
          Total, title V,             1,124,518          1,449,689         1,464,385          +339,867           +14,696
           Foreign Assistance
           and Related
           Programs...........
              (By transfer)...           (4,257)            (4,257)           (4,257)  ................  ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
           SERVICES

 Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct         1,183,670          1,369,385         1,392,814          +209,144           +23,429
 appropriation................
    Emergency appropriations            151,100   .................  ................         -151,100   ................
     (Public Law 107-117).....
    Prescription drug user fee         (161,716)          (264,220)         (222,900)         (+61,184)         (-41,320)
     act......................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       (1,496,486)        (1,633,605)       (1,615,714)        (+119,228)         (-17,891)

    Mammography clinics user            (15,590)           (16,112)          (16,112)            (+522)  ................
     fee (outlay savings).....
    Export certification......           (6,181)            (6,378)           (6,378)            (+197)  ................
    Payments to GSA...........         (105,116)           (98,556)          (98,556)          (-6,560)  ................

Buildings and facilities......           34,281              8,000            11,000           -23,281            +3,000
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug            1,369,051          1,377,385         1,403,814           +34,763           +26,429
       Administration.........
                               =========================================================================================================================
     INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading                70,700             79,884            94,435           +23,735           +14,551
 Commission...................
    Emergency appropriations             16,900   .................  ................          -16,900   ................
     (Public Law 107-117).....
    Transaction fee (proposed)  ................           -33,000   ................  ................          +33,000
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Commodity Futures           87,600             46,884            94,435            +6,835           +47,551
       Trading Commission.....

Farm Credit Administration              (36,700)           (36,700)          (38,404)          (+1,704)          (+1,704)
 (limitation on administrative
 expenses)....................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related        1,456,651          1,424,269         1,498,249           +41,598           +73,980
       Agencies and Food and
       Drug Administration....
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships............            2,496   .................            2,496   ................           +2,496
National Sheep Industry                   1,000   .................  ................           -1,000   ................
 Improvement Center revolving
 fund.........................
Limit crop insurance education           -6,000   .................  ................           +6,000   ................
Mallard Pointe conservation...              150   .................  ................             -150   ................
Jamestown conservation........              250   .................  ................             -250   ................
Child and adult care feeding             10,000   .................           22,000           +12,000           +22,000
 program......................
CCC Apple market loss.........           75,000   .................  ................          -75,000   ................
Dairy price support extension.           15,000   .................  ................          -15,000   ................
Sugar beets...................            5,000   .................  ................           -5,000   ................
Tobacco.......................            5,000   .................  ................           -5,000   ................
Summer Food Service program...  ................  .................           24,000           +24,000           +24,000
Youth organizations...........  ................  .................            6,000            +6,000            +6,000
Telework......................  ................  .................            2,000            +2,000            +2,000
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VII,                 107,896   .................           56,496           -51,400           +56,496
       General provisions.....
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Grand total:
          New budget                 73,355,443         73,530,625        74,330,233          +974,790          +799,608
           (obligational)
           authority..........
              Appropriations..      (72,823,743)       (73,530,625)      (74,330,233)      (+1,506,490)        (+799,608)
              Rescission......          (-3,300)  .................  ................          (+3,300)  ................
              Emergency                 535,000   .................  ................         -535,000   ................
               appropriations.
          (By transfer).......         (769,670)          (786,330)         (816,330)         (+46,660)         (+30,000)
          (Loan authorization)      (13,962,986)       (11,158,621)      (14,077,811)        (+114,825)      (+2,919,190)
          (Limitation on               (144,759)          (145,782)         (147,486)          (+2,727)          (+1,704)
           administrative
           expenses)..........
                               =========================================================================================================================
        RECAPITULATION

Title I--Agricultural programs       29,227,688         25,197,007        25,593,038        -3,634,650          +396,031
    Mandatory.................      (23,193,095)       (19,186,010)      (19,186,175)      (-4,006,920)            (+165)
    Discretionary.............       (6,034,593)        (6,010,997)       (6,406,863)        (+372,270)        (+395,866)
Title II--Conservation                  962,139          1,000,944         1,044,212           +82,073           +43,268
 programs (discretionary).....
Title III--Rural economic and         2,581,924          2,587,065         2,745,988          +164,064          +158,923
 community development
 programs (discretionary).....
Title IV--Domestic food              37,894,627         41,871,651        41,927,865        +4,033,238           +56,214
 programs (discretionary).....
    Mandatory.................      (33,078,732)       (36,825,861)      (36,865,861)      (+3,787,129)         (+40,000)
    Discretionary.............       (4,815,895)        (5,045,790)       (5,062,004)        (+246,109)         (+16,214)
Title V--Foreign assistance           1,124,518          1,449,689         1,464,385          +339,867           +14,696
 and related programs
 (discretionary)..............
Title VI--Related agencies and        1,456,651          1,424,269         1,498,249           +41,598           +73,980
 Food and Drug Administration
 (discretionary)..............
Title VII--General provisions           107,896   .................           56,496           -51,400           +56,496
 (discretionary)..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, new budget              73,355,443         73,530,625        74,330,233          +974,790          +799,608
       (obligational)
       authority..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.



