[Senate Report 111-221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 464
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-221
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011
_______
July 15, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kohl, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3606]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3606)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2011
Total of bill as reported to the Senate.................$132,053,999,000
Amount of 2010 appropriations........................... 121,570,814,000
Amount of 2011 budget estimate.......................... 132,028,200,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2010 appropriations................................. +10,483,185,000
2011 budget estimate................................ +25,799,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Breakdown by Title............................................... 4
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Reports to Congress.......................................... 5
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 6
Office of Tribal Relations........................... 7
Healthy Food Financing Initiative.................... 7
Executive Operations................................. 7
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 9
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 10
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 10
Office of Civil Rights............................... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 11
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments........................................... 12
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 12
Departmental Administration.......................... 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.......................................... 13
Office of Communications............................. 14
Office of Inspector General.......................... 14
Office of the General Counsel........................ 15
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 15
Economic Research Service............................ 16
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 16
Agricultural Research Service........................ 17
National Institute of Food and Agriculture........... 22
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 31
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 32
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 37
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 40
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 41
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 41
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 43
Farm Service Agency.................................. 44
Risk Management Agency............................... 48
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 48
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 49
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 51
Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets................. 52
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 52
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 57
Rural Housing Service.................................... 58
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 66
Rural Energy for America Program......................... 70
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 71
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 77
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 77
Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 85
Title VI:
Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 90
Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration........... 98
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 100
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 103
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 103
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 104
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 104
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 106
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............ 106
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 117
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Committee
2010 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... 30,191,573 30,259,695
Title II: Conservation programs... 1,009,415 1,045,504
Title III: Rural economic and 2,934,309 2,767,584
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 82,782,603 94,051,710
Title V: Foreign assistance and 2,089,499 2,129,010
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies and 2,357,089 2,516,282
Food and Drug Administration.....
Title VII: General provisions..... -193,674 -715,786
Other appropriations 400,000 .................
(discretionary)..................
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 121,570,814 132,053,999
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunication and
electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the competing priorities that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2011.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report. The Committee provides full pay costs, as requested by
the President, for agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report
request.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $5,285,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 5,936,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,338,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,338,000 for
the Office of the Secretary.
Animal Fighting.--The Committee is very concerned about
reports of illegal animal fighting activities and directs the
Secretary to work with relevant agencies on the most effective
and proper means for investigating and enforcing laws and
regulations regarding these activities.
Global Food Security.--The Committee continues its strong
support of work toward the goal of global food security. This
bill includes a number of programs designed to assist in that
effort including continuing last year's increased level of
spending for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program and
the flagship Public Law 480 program. In addition, the Committee
includes $10,000,000 in this bill to allow the Secretary to
utilize the expertise of USDA and associated organizations such
as land grant universities, to assist in the establishment and
growth of sustainable food systems in developing countries. The
Committee believes that progress such as this will contribute
greatly to reducing the threat of chronic and acute hunger and
to improve both national and international security and
stability.
OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,025,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,010,000
The Office of Tribal Relations will interact with USDA
program agencies to understand pending actions that may affect
Indian tribes. This interaction and programmatic knowledge will
improve USDA's ability to conduct consultation activities,
thereby better addressing the needs of USDA tribal constituents
and improving relationships.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,010,000 for
the Office of Tribal Relations.
HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE
Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will promote a range
of interventions that expand access to nutritious foods,
including developing and equipping grocery stores and other
small businesses and retailers selling healthy food in
communities that currently lack these options. This initiative
will help reduce the number of food deserts over the next
several years and will create new markets for farmers in an
effort to revitalize distressed communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000
for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
The Committee recognizes the difficulty of obtaining
nutritious food products in many communities, especially in
rural communities where retail outlets may be located at a
significant distance making access by rural residents
problematic and expensive. The Committee provides a direct
appropriation of $15,000,000 and also allows a reserve of up to
$15,000,000 in available funds for a total amount of
$30,000,000 for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative in fiscal
year 2011. Because of the need to assist rural populations in
access to nutritious food, and because rural business and
community development (which will serve as the catalyst for
better food access) is under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture, these funds are to focus on improving product
access in rural America. The Committee also expects this
initiative to benefit farmers through the creation of new
retail markets in rural and non-rural areas. The Secretary is
directed to submit a report to the Committee by March 1, 2011
on the approach and status of implementing this activity.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, the Office of Homeland Security
and the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $13,032,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 13,175,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,100,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and
international food and agriculture issues, provides policy
direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses
of climate change impacts on agriculture and forestry, and is
responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop
outlook and situation material within the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,100,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $15,254,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 15,424,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,424,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,424,000
for the National Appeals Division.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $9,436,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 9,547,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,547,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,547,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,859,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,876,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,876,000
The Office of Homeland Security formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Office directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,876,000 for
the Office of Homeland Security.
OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,700,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 7,009,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,709,000
The purpose of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach is to
increase the accessibility of USDA programs to underserved
constituents. The Office would oversee the Office of Small
Farms Coordination and the Advisory Committee for Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers. In addition, the Office would coordinate
the activities of various USDA programs and agencies that have
as a mission purpose the provision of assistance to underserved
constituents and would generally encourage and advocate for
full participation by all Americans in USDA programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,709,000 for
the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $61,579,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 63,719,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,719,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational
services are also provided to the Office of the General
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,719,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount
includes an increase of $2,000,000 for cyber security, as
requested.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $6,566,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 6,632,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,632,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides accounting and
fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary, Departmental
staff offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office
of Communications, and Executive Operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,632,000 for
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 907,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
provides oversight of civil rights and related functions. This
includes coordination of the administration of civil rights
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $907,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $23,922,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 24,133,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,133,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,133,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $806,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 828,000
Committee recommendation................................ 814,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental management
offices in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress
relating to real and personal property management, personnel
management, ethics, and other general administrative functions.
In addition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration is responsible for certain activities financed
under the Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $293,093,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 277,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 269,191,000
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-
building Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC,
and in leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC,
area. Annual appropriations finance payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for leased space and related
services. Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and
repairs D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible
for major nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent
rates pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to
appeal. For the last several years the Department has
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $269,191,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
The Committee recommendation includes increases of $300,000 for
payments to the Department of Homeland Security, $3,400,000 for
repair and maintenance priorities, and $5,600,000 for
renovation of the South Building.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2010 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 budget Committee
2010 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 184,812 178,470 178,470
Building Operations............................................. 94,781 85,667 76,921
DHS Building Security........................................... 13,500 13,800 13,800
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 293,093 277,937 269,191
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $5,125,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 5,139,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,139,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,139,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $41,319,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 30,706,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,706,000
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,706,000
for Departmental Administration.
Acquisition Workforce.--The Committee recommends a general
provision that provides $1,000,000 to improve the capacity and
capabilities of the Department's acquisition workforce. If the
Secretary intends to continue this effort in fiscal year 2012,
the Committee strongly suggests that the budget request include
information describing any evidence of deficiencies in the
Department's current acquisition activities and detail the
manner in which a specific appropriations request is
calculated.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $3,968,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 4,081,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,008,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,008,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $9,722,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 9,839,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,839,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,839,000 for
the Office of Communications.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $88,725,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 90,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 89,744,000
The Office of Inspector General was established October 12,
1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452).
This act expanded and provided specific authorities for the
activities of the Office of Inspector General which had
previously been carried out under the general authorities of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $89,744,000
for the Office of Inspector General. In addition, the
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2010 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $43,551,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 45,654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,104,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,104,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research
Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
Herbicide Resistance.--The Committee directs USDA to engage
with farmers, land grant universities, State departments of
agriculture, and the private sector to identify issues and to
develop solutions related to herbicide resistance that are
practicable, cost-effective, and minimize environmental
impacts. The Chief Scientist shall provide the Committee with a
report, which should include details on USDA's research on
herbicide resistance to date, a future research agenda, and
outreach efforts undertaken in carrying out this directive.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $82,478,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 87,171,000
Committee recommendation................................ 83,671,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,671,000
for the ERS. The Committee recommendation includes increases of
$1,500,000 to improve user access to statistical data provided
by ERS; $1,000,000 for economic research on the access to
affordable and nutritious food by low-income communities;
$990,000 for data integrity measures; and assumes all savings
proposed in the budget request. The Committee recommendation
also includes $500,000 for continuation of the Organic
Production and Market Data Initiative.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $161,830,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 164,721,000
Committee recommendation................................ 163,721,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census
of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides
comprehensive data on the agricultural economy including: data
on the number of farms, land use, production expenses, farm
product values, value of land and buildings, farm size and
characteristics of farm operators, market value of agricultural
production sold, acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock
and poultry, and farm irrigation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $163,721,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Committee
recommendation includes increases of $4,000,000 to enhance the
annual county estimates program; $500,000 to begin a
comprehensive data series on organic production, handling and
distribution; and $800,000 to enhance remote sensing
activities. Included in this amount is $33,494,000 for the
Census of Agriculture.
Chemical Use Data Series.--The Committee believes that the
Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information
on fertilizer and chemical user data on major field crops and
selected specialty crops, and is pleased that NASS is
continuing the collection and analysis of chemical use data, as
well as practices such as integrated pest management.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,179,639,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,199,669,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,216,825,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,216,825,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the
premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports
ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation's
food supply, environment, rural communities, and working toward
energy independence. The Committee continues $13,286,000, for
this purpose.
The Committee recommendation does not include the
President's budget proposal regarding laboratory closures, and
expects research to continue at those locations. The Committee
directs the Secretary to evaluate the agency's capital asset
requirements for necessary coordination with ongoing and
emerging research priorities. As part of this evaluation, ARS
should provide opportunity for public comment in order to
incorporate the priorities of all interested stakeholders,
including ARS and other scientists, and users of ARS data.
The Committee recommends the following increases, as
requested in the budget: $6,130,000 for crop breeding and
protection to enhance food production and security; $2,438,000
for research on improved breeding strategies and germplasm, and
animal protection to enhance food production and security;
$3,751,000 for increased food safety research; $2,293,000 for
research aimed at reducing world hunger, including $793,000 to
strengthen high priority grain disease research at St. Paul,
Minnesota; $675,000 for increased research on human nutrition;
$5,000,000 for Regional Biofuels Feedstocks Research and
Demonstration Centers; $1,625,000 for research on global
climate change, including $1,293,000 at Auburn, Alabama, to
increase the resilience of crops and production systems to the
stresses of climate change and weather extremes, and $332,000
at Oxford, Mississippi, for research on mitigating the effects
of climate change through improved water management; $250,000
for research on colony collapse disorder; and $500,000 on
research regarding locally grown foods.
Bioenergy and Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee
recognizes the constraints placed upon the National Program
Initiatives of Bioenergy/Biomass and Production Systems for
Sustainable Agriculture especially the availability and cost of
energy, water, feed, fertilizer, and technology to control
invasive pest species. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for
research to mitigate these key constraints.
Bioenergy Feedstock.--The Committee provides $500,000 to
study new production practices and systems that can maximize
yield of high quality feedstock.
Cattle Production Systems.--The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 to develop management practices that
improve the production efficiency of cattle grazing operations
in temperate pastures.
Childhood Health and Obesity.--The Committee is concerned
about the high rates of obesity in this country, and the
medical issues obesity brings, and believes that prevention of
childhood obesity is an important step in reducing overall
obesity rates. Therefore, the Committee includes an increase of
$1,000,000 for research regarding what nutrients and dietary
factors are needed to optimize infant and child development,
and what infants should be fed to reduce childhood diseases and
diseases they will experience later as adults.
Diversified Rice Farming Techniques.--The Committee
includes an increase of $400,000, as requested in the budget,
for development of diversified rice farming techniques, as part
of the overall increase provided for crop breeding and
protection to enhance food production and security.
Human Nutrition Research.--Of the funds provided to restore
Human Nutrition Research, the Committee directs that $350,000
go to Boston, MA; $300,000 go to Houston, TX; and $1,000,000 go
to Kannapolis, NC.
Infectious Livestock Diseases.--The Committee recognizes
the need to continue research on infectious livestock diseases.
The Committee provides $1,750,000 for expanded research on the
emerging serotype of Bluetongue virus and zoonotic Rift Valley
Fever virus to develop countermeasures and control insect
vectors.
Invasive Weeds Management.--The Committee is aware of
problems associated with invasive weeds and rangeland
degradation in the Western Great Basin. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $500,000 to provide
solutions and management practices for controlling invasive
species and restoring ecosystem structure and function.
Peanut Genome Mapping.--The Committee provides $750,000 to
map and sequence the peanut genome and to develop molecular
markers to aid in marker-assisted variety development.
Pear Genetics and Genomics.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to provide a report detailing
specifically its year-by-year plans to locate and allocate
resources including staff, facilities and equipment for pear
genetics and genomics throughout the Agricultural Research
Service. This report should also provide an estimate of how
long it will take to meet the goals of the Pyrus plant
improvement roadmap, including funding requirements necessary
to meet the terms of that roadmap.
Pulse Health Initiative.--The Committee recognizes the need
to investigate the ability of pulse crops--dry beans, dry peas,
lentils, and chickpeas--to provide solutions to critical health
issues including but not limited to obesity, diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and cancer; and to increase the
consumption of pulse crops by improving their functionality in
baked goods and end use as a food and food ingredient through
the study of milling, extrusion, extraction, and cooking
properties. The Committee also recognizes the potential to
improve the sustainability of agricultural rotations and reduce
green house gas emissions by improving the nitrogen fixing
abilities of pulse crops. The Committee recommends ARS provide
adequate funding to establish the Pulse Health Initiative.
Research Partnerships.--The Committee is aware of ARS
efforts to accelerate the adoption of Federal agricultural
research and technology innovations through Federal/private
sector partnerships with Agricultural Technology Innovation
Partnership intermediaries. The Committee provides $250,000 to
establish one or more demonstration projects with the
Mississippi Technology Alliance as a pilot for the
commercialization of science-based agricultural technologies
from Federal laboratories.
Sugarcane.--The Committee supports efforts to enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane producers through the
expansion of valuable non-sugar byproducts and the development
of pest and disease protection for viable diversified
agricultural crops and encourages ARS to provide additional
funding for this purpose.
Sustainable Natural Resource and Crop Management
Practices.--The Committee recognizes the opportunity to improve
the sustainability of farm operations through improvements in
soil and water quality and diversification of farm products and
income. Research is needed to develop natural resource and crop
management practices to integrate trees and/or shrubs with
crops/livestock at the interface of the urban and rural
landscape. The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to
accelerate efforts to develop land use systems and new
conservation tools to support the long-term future of rural and
urban working farms and landscapes.
Upper Midwest Water Research.--The Committee is supportive
of the ongoing research collaboration between ARS and the Great
Lakes Water Institute and the Milwaukee Water Council regarding
the production of yellow perch, whose populations have
decreased significantly in recent years. The Committee believes
that aquaculture research, specifically as it relates to the
Great Lakes, should be increased, and that ARS should expand
the work it is doing in collaboration with the Great Lakes
Water Institute and the Milwaukee Water Council.
The following is a list of congressionally designated
projects:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquaculture Fisheries Center; Stuttgart, AR........... $519,000
Biomass Crop Production; Brookings, SD................ 1,250,000
Bioremediation Research; Beltsville, MD............... 111,000
Biotechnology Research and Development Center; 3,500,000
Headquarters.........................................
Computer Vision Engineer; Kearneysville, WV........... 400,000
Dairy Forage Research Center; Madison, WI............. 2,500,000
Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center; Booneville, 1,805,000
AR...................................................
Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research; New Orleans, LA.. 623,000
Endophyte Research; Booneville, AR.................... 994,000
Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease 200,000
Management; Prosser, WA..............................
Formosan Subterranean Termites; New Orleans, LA....... 3,490,000
Human Nutrition Research; Boston, MA; Houston, TX; 1,650,000
Kannapolis, NC.......................................
National Center for Agricultural Law; Beltsville, MD.. 654,000
Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory; Mandan, ND. 543,000
Northwest Center for Small Fruits; Corvallis, OR...... 275,000
Phytoestrogen Research; New Orleans, LA............... 1,750,000
Poultry Diseases; Beltsville, MD...................... 408,000
Sorghum Research; Little Rock, AR..................... 135,000
Technology Transfer; Headquarters..................... 250,000
Water Management Research Laboratory; Brawley, CA..... 340,000
Water Use Reduction; Dawson, GA....................... 1,200,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 22,597,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $70,873,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 44,000,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,000,000
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research
Service.
Modern research facilities are an important part of the
ability of ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose,
and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that
modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all
ongoing projects. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations for Agricultural Research Service,
Buildings and Facilities:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Center; Beltsville, MD.......... 3,000
Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT............... 6,000
Agricultural Research Center; Pullman, WA............. 5,000
Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT............... 3,000
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV....... 1,500
ARS Biotechnology Lab; Lorman, MS..................... 2,000
ARS Research and Development Center; Auburn, AL....... 6,000
ARS Waste Management Research Facility; Bowling Green, 5,000
KY...................................................
Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du 1,000
Sac, WI..............................................
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center; Orono, 1,500
ME...................................................
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI.. 5,000
Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA.............. 1,000
Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE........ 4,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 44,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS Agroforestry Research Center.--The Committee directs
that funds appropriated to date for the National Plant and
Genetics Security Center, Columbia, Missouri, be used to design
and construct the ARS Agroforestry Research Center and a
headhouse/greenhouse complex for plant physiology and genetics
research. The Agroforestry Research Center shall be named the
Dr. H.E. Gene Garrett Agroforestry Center.
Bay Springs Research Facility Prospectus.--The Committee
directs the agency to provide a prospectus on the construction
of a research facility at Bay Springs, Mississippi. The
prospectus shall, at a minimum, include the following
information: the feasibility, requirements, and scope of the
proposed project; details on the building size, cost,
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other
requirements; and details on the existing and planned research
program and associated resource requirements.
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center.--The
Committee is aware that there are funds remaining in the San
Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center, Parlier,
California, design and construction account and that the San
Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center could benefit from
the acquisition of additional land to support their research
mission. The Committee directs ARS to use these remaining funds
for site acquisition in support of the research mission at the
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be
known as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA].
The Secretary transferred to NIFA, effective October 1, 2009,
any and all other authorities administered by the Administrator
of the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension
Service. The mission is to work with university partners and
customers to advance research, extension, and higher education
in the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental
and human sciences to benefit people, communities, and the
Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $788,243,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 838,729,000
Committee recommendation................................ 780,720,000
Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are
USDA's principal entree to the university system of the United
States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and
education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural, Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624); the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171); and the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and
other cooperators to encourage and assist the State
institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and
education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of
the 50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of
Forestry; the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee
University and West Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant
Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other
eligible institutions. The appropriated funds provide Federal
support for research and education programs at these
institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $780,720,000
for research and education activities of the National Institute
of Food and Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act.............................................. $215,000,000
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program. 29,000,000
Evans-Allen program (1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University 48,500,000
and West Virginia State University)...................
Animal Health and Disease Research..................... 2,950,000
================
Special Research Grants:
Advanced Genetic Technologies (KY)................. 650,000
Advancing Biofuel Production (TX).................. 300,000
Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass/Biomass) 200,000
(WA)..............................................
Agricultural Diversification (HI).................. 153,000
Agricultural Science (OH).......................... 450,000
Air quality (TX, KS)............................... 300,000
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium (AR, IA, KS). 1,000,000
Aquaculture (LA)................................... 150,000
Aquaculture (MS)................................... 337,000
Avian Bioscience (DE).............................. 150,000
Barley for Rural Development (ID, MT).............. 500,000
Biodesign and Bioprocessing (VA)................... 211,000
Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration (TN) 500,000
Biomass-based Energy Research (OK, MS)............. 839,000
Bioresource Land Use Planning Project (KY)......... 671,000
Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and 168,000
Disease Resistance (NM)...........................
Center for Food, Nutrition and Obesity (WV)........ 550,000
Center for One Medicine (IL)....................... 500,000
Center for Multi-Functional Prairie Agriculture 700,000
(SD)..............................................
Center for Rural Studies (VT)...................... 350,000
Childhood Obesity and Nutrition (VT)............... 250,000
Cool season legume research (ID, ND, WA)........... 350,000
Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality (GA).... 346,000
Cranberry/Blueberry (MA)........................... 152,000
Cranberry/Blueberry Disease & Breeding (NJ)........ 522,000
Crop Diversification and Biofuel Research and 525,000
Education (KY)....................................
Dairy and Meat Goat Research (TX).................. 200,000
Dairy Farm Profitability (PA)...................... 372,000
Delta Revitalization Project (MS).................. 176,000
Drought Mitigation (NE)............................ 600,000
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)...................... 575,000
Emerald Ash Borer (OH)............................. 522,000
Environmentally Safe Products (VT)................. 250,000
Floriculture (HI).................................. 300,000
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, 1,213,000
MO, NV)...........................................
Food & Fuel Initiative (IA)........................ 298,000
Forages for Advancing Livestock Production (KY).... 473,000
Fresh Produce Food Safety (CA)..................... 750,000
Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and 797,000
Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease (MS)
Global Change, UV-Monitoring....................... 1,750,000
Grain Sorghum (KS)................................. 1,250,000
Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable 142,000
Agriculture (OR, WA)..............................
Human Nutrition (LA)............................... 526,000
Illinois Plant Breeding Center (IL)................ 617,000
Inland Marine Aquaculture (VA)..................... 380,000
Infectious Disease Research (CO)................... 617,000
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR).... 500,000
Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical 188,000
Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems
(IN)..............................................
Leopold Center Hypoxia Project (IA)................ 100,000
Livestock & Dairy Policy (NY)...................... 180,000
Maple Research (VT)................................ 165,000
Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses (IN).......... 188,000
Midwest Poultry Consortium (IA).................... 250,000
Milk Safety (PA)................................... 780,000
Minor Use Animal Drugs............................. 429,000
National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium 655,000
(CO, GA, NY)......................................
National Center for Agricultural and Rural 175,000
Sustainability (AR)...............................
National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)........ 690,000
Native Grassland and Sustainability (KS)........... 1,000,000
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering (NM)....... 199,000
Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative (NV)............. 500,000
New Century Farm (IA).............................. 350,000
New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for 654,000
Agriculture (MS)..................................
Organic Cropping (OR).............................. 142,000
Organic Cropping (WA).............................. 264,000
Pierce's Disease and Invasive Pest Research (CA)... 2,000,000
Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable 200,000
Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program (TX).....
Potato Research.................................... 1,436,000
Preharvest Food Safety (KS)........................ 500,000
Protein Utilization (IA)........................... 500,000
Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics (ID)................. 300,000
Renewable Energy and Products (ND)................. 1,000,000
Rural Policies Research Institute (IA)............. 755,000
Russian Wheat Aphid (CO)........................... 237,000
Small Fruit Research (ID, OR, WA).................. 285,000
Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated 178,000
Agriculture (NM)..................................
Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium (NM)........ 350,000
Soybean Cyst Nematode (MO)......................... 556,000
Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable 237,000
Resources (VA)....................................
Sustainable Food and Bio-Energy Systems (MT)....... 305,000
Sustainable Production and Processing Research for 200,000
Lowbush Specialty Crops (ME)......................
Sustainable Wheat Production and Food Security (SD) 600,000
Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management (LA)....... 180,000
Tropical and Subtropical Research/T STAR (HI)...... 800,000
Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project (MO).... 588,000
Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars (WA)............... 247,000
Viticulture Consortium (CA)........................ 1,000,000
Water Conservation (KS)............................ 600,000
Wetland Plants (LA)................................ 200,000
Wheat Genetic Research (KS)........................ 1,250,000
Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership 300,000
(WY)..............................................
Wood Utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, 4,841,000
OR, WV)...........................................
----------------
Total, Special Research Grants................... 49,686,000
================
Improved Pest Control:
Expert IPM Decision Support System................. 156,000
Integrated Pest Management......................... 2,415,000
Minor Crop Pest Management, IR-4................... 12,180,000
Pest Management Alternatives....................... 1,434,000
----------------
Total, Improved Pest Control..................... 16,185,000
================
Critical Ag Materials Act of 1984...................... 1,083,000
Aquaculture Centers, Section 1475...................... 3,928,000
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education......... 15,000,000
1994 Institutions Research Program..................... 1,805,000
Supplemental and Alternative Crops, Section 1473 D..... 835,000
AFRI................................................... 310,074,000
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration (NM, TX, 983,000
MT)...................................................
New Era Rural Technology Program....................... 875,000
Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Program...... 1,500,000
Sun Grant Program...................................... 2,250,000
Federal Administration:
Ag-based Industrial Lubricants (IA)................ 405,000
Agriculture Development in the American Pacific 400,000
(HI)..............................................
Agriculture Technology Innovation, MD.............. 150,000
Agriculture Waste Utilization (WV)................. 500,000
Applied Agriculture and Environment Research (CA).. 350,000
Biofuels Research (VT)............................. 100,000
Biotechnology Research (MS)........................ 480,000
Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence (PA).......... 340,000
Clemson University Veterinary Institute (SC)....... 1,000,000
Converting Agricultural Waste to Energy (KS)....... 2,000,000
Cotton Research (TX)............................... 200,000
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (IA) 110,000
Data Information System (REEIS).................... 2,704,000
Development of Biobased Chemicals and Materials 125,000
from Agriculture Raw Materials (MI)...............
Electronic Grants Administration System............ 2,136,000
Ethnobotanicals (MD)............................... 500,000
Farmland Preservation (OH)......................... 152,000
Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, 285,000
University of Central Florida.....................
International Center for Food Technology 450,000
Development to Expand Markets (IL)................
Kansas Advanced Biofuel Development................ 2,000,000
Kansas Center for Advanced Plant Design............ 2,000,000
Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center 95,000
MATRIC (IA).......................................
Mississippi Valley State University................ 1,002,000
NE Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME)......... 295,000
Office of Extramural Programs...................... 440,000
Pay Costs.......................................... 5,826,000
Peer Panels........................................ 397,000
Polymer Research (KS).............................. 2,350,000
Rural Systems (MS)................................. 215,000
Shrimp Aquaculture (MS)............................ 300,000
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Law 343,000
Center (VT).......................................
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (OH).................. 500,000
Water Pollutants (WV).............................. 500,000
----------------
Total, Federal Administration.................... 28,650,000
================
Higher Education:
Graduate Fellowships Grants........................ 3,859,000
Institution Challenge Grants....................... 5,654,000
1890s Institution Capacity Building Grants......... 18,250,000
Multicultural Scholars............................. 1,241,000
Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants 9,237,000
Program...........................................
Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program.... 3,342,000
Secondary/2-Year Post Secondary.................... 983,000
Veterinary Medical Services Act.................... 5,000,000
Alaska Native-Serving and Native-Hawaiian-Serving 3,200,000
Institutions......................................
Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas...... 900,000
Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas........ 750,000
----------------
Total, Higher Education Grants................... 52,416,000
================
Total, Research and Education.................... 780,720,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $310,074,000 for the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative [AFRI]. The Committee notes that
programs previously funded through the Integrated Activities
account are eligible for funding under AFRI.
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 specifies priority areas within the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on
conventional (classical) plant and animal breeding. The
Committee strongly concurs with the intent of this section, and
requests a report from the agency as to its plans for
implementing the intent of this important conventional/
classical plant and animal breeding requirement.
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Agriculture Policy Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,213,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy
Institute, of which $340,000 shall be used to conduct analysis
of rangeland, cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada-
Reno. The Committee recommendation also includes $755,000 for
the Rural Policies Research Institute.
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,200,000 for grants to individual eligible institutions or
consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii,
with grant funds to be awarded equally between Alaska and
Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242.
The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the use
of grant funds as authorized.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $850,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption
needs and encourages the Department to seek stakeholder input
and to provide funds in a manner that reaches those areas most
likely to see expansions in canola production.
Community Food Projects.--The Committee expects the
Department of Agriculture to consider as fully eligible for
Community Food Project [CFP] grants any program that encourages
the effective use of community resources to combat hunger and
the root causes of hunger through the recovery of donated food,
distribution of meals to nonprofit organizations, and the
training of unemployed and underemployed adults for careers in
food service. The Committee considers such programs to meet the
requisite eligibility standards for CFP grants in that they
meet the food needs of low-income people, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and
plan for long-term solutions to address such needs.
Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The
Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research
in Hawaii and expects priorities of this activity (as defined
by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and
improvement of germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to
derive and release new commercial varieties and continue
research on disease resistance and insect control. The
Committee also provides funding for tropical and subtropical
research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation,
recommendation and distribution of funds through the Pacific
Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration Groups.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of the National Research
Initiative, the predecessor program to the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI]. As this program has grown, however,
the allocation of AFRI funds by NIFA for research on forestry
and related natural resource topics has fallen behind. In the
future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to
put a greater emphasis on AFRI funding for forestry and natural
resources topics with a goal of eventually providing at least
10 percent of the total funds provided for AFRI for forestry
and natural resources related research on topics including:
woody plant systems, including large scale efforts to sequence
the genome for several economically important tree species,
technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and
increased tree growth rates; management of complex forest
ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity,
economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative
management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis,
geospatial analysis including landscape implications,
consideration of ecological services, providing decision
support systems; and development of nanotechnology and
biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as
critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy
security.
National Center for Agricultural and Rural
Sustainability.--The Committee provides $175,000 for the
National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability and
encourages the ERS, NRCS, RMA, and NIFA to cooperate with the
Center in establishing national sustainability standards,
measures, and protocols.
Special Research Grants.--The Committee recognizes the
vital relationships between Federal research activities and
land grant institutions and firmly supports the importance of
congressionally recognized research priorities. The Special
Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to
promote research among these partners in specific areas of need
to meet emerging and long-term national and regional
challenges.
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the
purpose of conducting research and related activities to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the
development of regional research centers, and to generally
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can
only be awarded if the proposed activity has undergone
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research
or related activity and the merits of the results.
Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging
important research priorities and result in a less efficient
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
For fiscal year 2011, the Committee continues its
responsibility of expressing congressional interest and
intervention in setting research priorities through the
investment of Federal funds. As the Committee has expressed in
previous years, specific problems require specific objectives
and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research
activities described in this report are intended to accomplish
the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to
extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors.
The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure
that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve
specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of
an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report by March 1, 2011, regarding the status of
grant awards for fiscal year 2011 and the specific objectives
to be sought in each case.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
HISPANIC-SERVING AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008, provides for the establishment of an endowment fund for
the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities
[HSACU]. The Hispanic/Latino community is the fastest growing
sector of the American population. This investment in the
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities is
needed to ensure institutions can effectively compete for NIFA
competitive grants.
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, shall distribute the adjusted
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income shall be
distributed among the Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges
and universities on a pro rata basis based on the Hispanic
enrollment count of each institution; and 40 percent shall be
distributed in equal shares to the Hispanic-serving
agricultural colleges and universities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities
Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $494,923,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 479,203,000
Committee recommendation................................ 491,231,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of
Agriculture is authorized to provide, through the land-grant
colleges, cooperative extension work that consists of the
development of practical applications of research knowledge and
the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations of
existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture,
uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home
economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application
of such information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-
H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance or
resident at the colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $491,231,000
for extension activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c).................. $297,500,000
================
Smith-Lever, Section 3d Programs:
Food and Nutrition Education (EFNEP)............... 68,070,000
Farm Safety........................................ 4,863,000
New Technologies for Ag Extension.................. 1,750,000
Pest Management.................................... 9,938,000
Children, Youth, and Families at Risk.............. 8,412,000
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification...... 486,000
Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program...... 3,500,000
Sustainable Agriculture............................ 5,000,000
----------------
Total, Section 3d Programs....................... 102,019,000
================
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia 42,677,000
State University......................................
Rural Health and Safety Education...................... 1,738,000
1890 Facilities (Sec. 1447)............................ 19,770,000
Grants to Youth Serving Institutions................... 1,000,000
Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA)............... 4,068,000
Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions............ 5,321,000
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD)......... 1,000,000
Women and Minorities in STEM Fields.................... 400,000
================
Federal Administration:
Ag in the Classroom................................ 553,000
Childhood Farm Safety (IA)......................... 75,000
Conservation Technology Transfer (WI).............. 376,000
Dairy Education (IA)............................... 175,000
E-commerce (MS).................................... 231,000
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)...................... 475,000
Extension Specialist (MS).......................... 173,000
Food Production Education (VT)..................... 116,000
General Administration, Including Pay Costs........ 8,252,000
Health Education Leadership (KY)................... 300,000
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (WI)......... 400,000
Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach (MI)...... 147,000
Iowa Vitality Center............................... 250,000
Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program.............. 700,000
National Center for Farm Safety (IA)............... 150,000
Northeast Energy and Environmental Dairy System 305,000
(PA)..............................................
Nutrition Enhancement (WI)......................... 950,000
Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative................. 700,000
Pilot Technology Transfer (MS, OK)................. 209,000
Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight (ME) 450,000
Range Improvement (NM)............................. 200,000
Urban Horticulture (WI)............................ 376,000
Urban Horticulture and Marketing (IL).............. 175,000
----------------
Total, Federal Administration.................... 15,738,000
================
Total, Extension Activities...................... 491,231,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $60,022,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 24,874,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,577,000
Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an
integrated research, education, and extension competitive
grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,577,000
for integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 406 Legislative Authority:
Water Quality....................................... $12,649,000
Methyl Bromide Transition Program................... 3,054,000
Organic Transition Program.......................... 5,000,000
---------------
Total, Section 406................................ 20,703,000
===============
International Science and Education Grants Program...... 3,000,000
Critical Issues Program................................. 732,000
Regional Rural Development Centers Program.............. 1,312,000
Homeland Security, Food and Agriculture Defense 9,830,000
Initiative.............................................
Sustainable Agriculture Federal-State Matching Grant 3,000,000
Program................................................
---------------
Total, Integrated Activities...................... 38,577,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $904,953,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 870,576,000
Committee recommendation................................ 926,609,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $926,609,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2011 budget Committee
2010 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI)................. 29,000 26,526 29,526
Cattle Fever Ticks....................................... 13,157 13,355 13,355
Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease............ 4,004 4,007 4,007
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection........................ 62,920 63,568 63,568
Import/Export............................................ 13,298 13,564 13,564
Overseas Technical and Trade Operations.................. 16,172 17,195 17,195
Screwworm................................................ 27,714 20,243 20,243
Tropical Bont Tick....................................... 429 432 432
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion................... 166,694 158,890 161,890
==================================================
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING:
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance................ 121,667 128,659 130,175
Animal and Plant Health Reg. Enforcement................. 13,983 15,913 16,913
Avian Influenza.......................................... 60,243 47,219 47,219
Emergency Management Systems............................. 15,794 15,933 15,933
National Veterinary Stockpile............................ 3,757 3,771 3,771
Pest Detection........................................... 28,113 26,957 28,314
Select Agents............................................ 5,176 5,214 5,214
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring........... 248,773 247,266 247,539
==================================================
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT:
Aquaculture.............................................. 6,560 5,816 6,570
Biological Control....................................... 10,467 10,149 11,399
Brucellosis.............................................. 9,707 9,154 9,804
Chronic Wasting Disease.................................. 16,875 14,208 16,929
Contingency Funds........................................ 2,058 2,085 2,085
Cotton Pests............................................. 23,390 9,041 22,254
==================================================
Emerging Plant Pests:
Asian Long-horned Beetle............................. 33,021 49,200 42,130
Citrus Canker/Citrus Health Program.................. 44,656 44,780 45,781
Emerald Ash Borer.................................... 37,205 13,160 22,000
Glassey-winged Sharpshooter.......................... 22,983 22,360 23,066
Sudden Oak Death..................................... 5,347 5,090 5,366
Potato Cyst Nematode................................. 8,327 6,245 8,357
Karnal Bunt.......................................... 2,151 2,160 2,160
Light Brown Apple Moth............................... 1,008 11,010 10,010
Sirex Woodwasp....................................... 1,500 1,505 1,505
Varroa Mite.......................................... 469 ............... 469
Other Emerging Plant Pests........................... 2,102 2,105 4,105
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Emerging Plant Pests........................ 158,769 157,615 164,949
==================================================
Golden Nematode.......................................... 831 843 843
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,578 4,637 5,637
Gypsy Moth............................................... 5,420 4,981 5,481
Imported Fire Ant........................................ 1,902 1,909 1,909
Johne's Disease.......................................... 6,876 3,470 6,885
Noxious Weeds............................................ 1,990 1,174 1,993
Plum Pox................................................. 2,206 2,129 2,215
Pseudorabies............................................. 2,510 2,560 2,560
Scrapie.................................................. 17,906 18,043 18,043
Tuberculosis............................................. 16,764 15,601 15,849
Wildlife Services Operations............................. 77,780 71,015 80,701
Witchweed................................................ 1,517 1,522 1,522
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management.................. 369,106 335,952 377,628
==================================================
ANIMAL CARE:
Animal Welfare........................................... 21,979 25,933 25,933
Horse Protection......................................... 500 900 900
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Care.................................. 22,479 23,233 26,833
==================================================
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES:
Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................ 13,050 18,695 18,954
Environmental Compliance................................. 2,715 2,750 2,750
Plant Methods Development Labs........................... 9,949 10,137 10,637
Veterinary Biologics..................................... 17,325 17,645 20,645
Veterinary Diagnostics................................... 26,073 29,745 30,633
Wildlife Services Methods Development.................... 18,630 16,064 18,901
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services............ 87,742 95,036 102,520
==================================================
MANAGEMENT:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure.............. 4,474 4,474 4,474
Physical/Operational Security............................ 5,725 5,725 5,725
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Management................................... 10,199 10,199 10,199
==================================================
TOTAL, APHIS........................................... 904,953 870,576 926,609
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of
contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation monies,
as in past fiscal years, to cover additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.
Animal Disease Traceability (Formerly National Animal ID
System).--During fiscal year 2010 the Department gathered
public comments and released a framework for a new Animal
Disease Traceability initiative. The initiative will focus on
State-specific concerns, and States and tribal governments will
guide its development. Rather than taking the lead, the agency
role is now facilitator and collaborator. At this stage it is
premature to identify agency resource needs and the Committee
provides no funding specifically for the initiative. However,
once a comprehensive plan has been developed and funding needs
identified, the Committee may consider this for further action
during deliberations on the fiscal year 2011 bill.
Biotechnology Regulatory Services.--The Committee provides
an increase of $5,767,000 for biotechnology regulatory services
and notes that while biotechnology holds promise for increased
agricultural productivity, it is extremely important that
adequate regulatory safeguards are in place to assure that only
properly approved products are allowed entry to the market to
avoid the possibility of any introduction of products with
unintended traits which could have potentially devastating
effects on the food supply and the economy.
Center for Veterinary Biologics.--The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 for the
Center for Veterinary Biologics [CVB]. The leadership of
Veterinary Services is commended for recently holding a
stakeholder meeting and for committing to make timely
improvements to the center's management, transparency, and
procedures. The Committee will closely monitor how the CVB
implements these changes. The Deputy Administrator of
Veterinary Services is directed to provide the Committee with
semi-annual reports on the workload of the CVB and the number
of days it takes for applications to complete the review
process.
Emerald Ash Borer.--The Committee recommendation includes
$22,000,000 for emerald ash borer. These funds, coupled with
the expected $17,000,000 to be carried over from fiscal year
2010, will provide a $39,000,000 program level in fiscal year
2011. The Committee recognizes this invasive species poses a
significant threat to the Nation's ash trees, has the potential
to cause substantial economic and ecological damage, and that
further efforts are required to manage its spread and develop
techniques and technologies for eradication. To these ends,
$1,000,000 is included for a cooperative research agreement
with the Agricultural Research Service to advance eradication
efforts against this destructive infestation.
Invasive Honey Bee Pests.--The Committee is concerned with
the national and global pollination impact associated with the
varroa mite and Small Hive Beetle discoveries in Hawaii, and
provides $469,000 for the agency to work with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, and community and industry leaders to
suppress varroa mites and other invasive honey bee pests and
eradicate and manage infestations where necessary.
COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the program, project, and activity
section of this report.
The following is a list of congressionally designated
projects:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Program Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Veterinary $69,000
Equipment, Delaware Department of diagnostics.
Agriculture.
Arthropod damage control Nevada, Grasshopper......... 1,000,000
APHIS Nevada.
Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Wildlife services 1,500,000
Institute Utah and Mississippi methods develop-
Agriculture and Forestry ment.
Experiment Station.
Bio-safety and antibiotic Animal health 240,000
resistance, University of Vermont. monitoring and
surveillance.
Blackbird management, APHIS Wildlife services 94,000
Louisiana. operations.
Bovine tuberculosis eradication Tuberculosis........ 248,000
Michigan, Michigan Department of
Agriculture.
Brucellosis eradication in the Brucellosis......... 650,000
Greater Yellowstone area states,
Idaho Department of Agriculture,
Montana Department of Livestock,
Wyoming Livestock Board.
California county pest detection Pest detection...... 619,000
augmentation program, California
Department of Food and
Agriculture.
Cogongrass control, Mississippi Noxious weeds....... 208,000
Department of Agriculture.
Cooperative livestock protection Wildlife services 223,000
program, APHIS Pennsylvania and operations.
Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture.
Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan. Wildlife services 139,000
operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS Wildlife services 223,000
Mississippi. operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont Wildlife services 103,000
and Vermont Fish and Wildlife operations.
Department.
Database of North Carolina's Animal health 208,000
agricultural industry for rapid monitoring and
response, NC Department of surveillance.
Agriculture.
Disease prevention, Louisiana Veterinary 69,000
Department of Wildlife and diagnostics.
Fisheries.
Genetically modified products, Biotechnology 259,000
Iowa State University. regulatory services.
Giant Salvinia control, Plant methods 500,000
Northwestern State University. development.
Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii.... Agricultural 3,000,000
quarantine
inspection.
Hawaii wildlife services Wildlife services 2,230,000
activities, APHIS Hawaii. operations.
Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Tennessee, Biological control.. 1,250,000
University of Tennessee.
Integrated predation management Wildlife services 280,000
activities, APHIS West Virginia. operations.
Invasive aquatic species, Lake Aquaculture......... 94,000
Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Management Cooperative, Vermont.
National Agriculture Biosecurity Veterinary 750,000
Center, Kansas State Universi- diagnostics.
ty.
New Mexico rapid syndrome Animal health 404,000
validation program, New Mexico monitoring and
State University. surveillance.
Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Noxious weeds....... 176,000
Perce Tribe.
Noxious weed management, Nevada Noxious weeds....... 235,000
Department of Agriculture.
Technology to combat asian long- Emerging plant pests 500,000
horned beetles in New York
forests, SUNY-College of
Environmental Science and
Forestry.
Tri-State predator control, APHIS Wildlife services 926,000
Idaho, Montana, and Wyo- ming. operations.
Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Emerging plant pests 469,000
Hawaii.
Wildlife management and control, Wildlife services 496,000
APHIS Mississippi. operations.
Wildlife Services South Dakota, Wildlife services 519,000
South Dakota Department of Game, operations.
Fish, and Parks.
---------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health .................... 17,681,000
Inspection Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $4,712,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 4,712,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,712,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$4,712,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow
APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically
needed repairs to and replacements of building components, such
as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized
basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the
environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities,
closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to
complete the required repairs.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $91,148,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 97,255,000
Committee recommendation................................ 96,955,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C.
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market
protection and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $96,955,000
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
The Committee recommendation includes increases of $891,000 for
the Pesticide Data Program, $250,000 for Microbiological Data
Program sampling, $3,111,000 for the National Organic Program,
and $920,000 for the Know Your Farmer Know Your Food
initiative.
Dairy Price Reporting.--The Committee encourages the
Secretary to consider the recommendations of the Dairy Industry
Advisory Committee regarding implementation of section 1510 of
Public Law 110-246.
Organics.--The Committee is greatly concerned by the
inability of the Department to take immediate remedial actions
upon strong evidence that products certified as organic may, in
fact, not be eligible for such designation. A recent incident
involving a third-party certification agent that approved
imported products to carry a USDA organic label has proved most
troubling. A departmental audit later resulted in a suspension
of the party's certification, but such suspension occurred
nearly 3 years after the initial audit. Further troubling is
the fact that the Department lacked the ability to withdraw the
certification due to lengthy appeals and other delays while
products of questionable content continued to appear in U.S.
markets. The Committee finds this type of delay unacceptable
and fears that continued problems of this nature will erode the
integrity of the entire USDA Organics Program.
The Committee has recommended an additional $3,111,000 for
operations of the National Organics Program [NOP], as
requested. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary to
conduct a full review of the Department's authorities for
enforcement of the NOP to identify proper actions for prompt
responses to protect the integrity of the program whenever and
wherever violations occur. The Secretary is directed to provide
a written report to the Committee by March 1, 2011, on steps
taken to improve enforcement of the Organic Standards Act.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2010........................................ $64,583,000
Budget limitation, 2011................................. 60,947,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,947,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $60,947,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $20,056,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 20,283,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,283,000
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2009-2011:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2009-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011
actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $7,979,334,788 $8,061,101,371 $6,605,945,807
Rescission of Current Year Funds.......................... -242,022,000 ................ ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -6,455,802,000 -6,747,877,000 -5,322,714,872
Commerce Department................................... -108,510,788 -114,224,371 -68,230,935
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -6,564,312,788 -6,862,101,371 -5,390,945,807
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 1,173,000,000 1,199,000,000 1,215,000,000
Unobligated Balance, Start of Year........................ 293,529,985 375,373,561 76,000,000
Rescission of Prior Year Funds............................ -51,507,985 -133,351,561 ................
Proposed Rescission of Current Year Funds................. ................ ................ -50,000,000
Unavailable for Obligations............................... -343,492,000 -76,000,000 -113,000,000
Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS....................... ................ -242,022,000 ................
Available for Obligation.................................. 1,071,530,000 1,123,000,000 1,128,000,000
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities).... 467,880,887 465,000,000 465,000,000
12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement................ ................ 152,200,000 120,000,000
State Option Contract................................. ................ ................ 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities...................... 28,963 2,500,000 2,500,000
Emergency Surplus Removal............................. 319,513,092 283,100,000 ................
Direct Payments....................................... 750,000 3,375,000 ................
Disaster Relief....................................... ................ 5,000,000 5,000,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases..... 119,418,398 24,639,114 203,000,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program..................... 108,000,000 25,000,000 113,000,000
Whole Grain Products Study (FSA)...................... 4,000,000 ................ ................
Accounting Adjustment................................. -28,159,093 1,561,000 ................
Estimated Future Needs................................ ................ 118,232,886 181,226,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement........................ 991,432,247 1,080,608,000 1,094,726,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support............................ 31,092,419 22,336,000 20,283,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders....................... 17,123,773 20,056,000 12,991,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds......................... 48,216,192 42,392,000 33,274,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations................................... 1,039,648,439 1,123,000,000 1,128,000,000
=====================================================
Unobligated Balance, End of Year.......................... 375,373,561 76,000,000 113,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $20,283,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,334,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,634,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,484,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,484,000 for
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $41,964,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 44,192,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,192,000
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,192,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration. The Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $1,800,000 for enforcement of the
Packers and Stockyards Act.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2010........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2011................................. 45,041,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $50,000,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $813,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 836,000
Committee recommendation................................ 821,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and processed egg products. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $821,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Ombudsman.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to
consider the establishment of an ombudsman to provide FSIS
inspectors and other personnel with an avenue to register their
concerns and help ensure that they are able to carry out their
responsibilities--ensuring compliance with all food safety and
humane slaughter requirements--without undue interference. If
deemed appropriate, the Committee recommends that this
ombudsman be independent from FSIS, reporting directly to the
Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,018,520,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,036,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,047,200,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,047,200,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$3,903,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex
office including international outreach and education.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee continues to include
$3,000,000, as requested in the budget, for maintenance of the
Humane Animal Tracking System. Further, the Committee notes
that the budget request will maintain no less than 148 full-
time equivalent positions which have been provided solely for
humane slaughter enforcement.
The Committee is pleased that USDA, during fiscal year
2010, acted upon the longstanding recommendations of this
Committee regarding objective scoring methods to enforce the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The Committee encourages USDA
to continue these efforts, and expand them as determined
appropriate.
Inspections.--The Committee recommendation does not include
the proposed reduction of $10,300,000 for the implementation of
section 11016 of Public Law 110-246, and expects USDA to meet
its statutory obligation and promulgate regulations to
implement this section. Further, USDA is directed to report on
the progress of implementing this section within 30 days of the
enactment of this act.
Mobile Review Team.--The Committee directs FSIS to consider
the hiring and training of a mobile review team of FSIS
employees to conduct unscheduled audits, including the
potential for undercover surveillance, focused on assessing
compliance with humane handling rules of live animals as they
arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes and
stunning areas. These teams could also, if deemed appropriate,
be responsible for reporting on or acting on other food safety
responsibilities, as outlined by FSIS. The Committee directs
FSIS to report back to the Committee on the feasibility of such
a team, including whether FSIS or another USDA agency would be
the most appropriate to carry out this effort; and the
potential responsibilities, challenges, costs, and benefits of
having such a team. If FSIS deems this to be a worthwhile
effort, the Committee encourages them to begin implementation.
State Meat Inspection.--The Committee is concerned that
USDA has not yet promulgated regulations regarding interstate
shipment of meat and poultry from eligible State-inspected
plants, in accordance with Public Law 110-246. The Committee
encourages USDA to continue to collaborate with State agencies,
as appropriate, on the swift publication and implementation of
these regulations.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2011 budget Committee
2010 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 903,067 912,248 919,248
State....................................................... 65,654 65,118 65,118
International............................................... 19,445 16,161 19,461
Codex Alimentarius.......................................... 3,884 3,903 3,903
PHDCIS...................................................... 26,470 39,470 39,470
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,018,520 1,036,900 1,047,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Food Aid Quality.--The Committee continues strong interest
in maintaining high quality standards in food products used for
international humanitarian assistance. The Department is
encouraged further to develop adequate standardization of
quality control mechanisms. In addition, the Committee expects
that appropriate levels of funding from the Commodity Credit
Corporation be directed to inspection of shipments in order to
avoid breaks in food pipelines and to maintain an orderly
conveyance of food to the world's hungry populations.
Geospatial Data.--The Committee is aware of section 1619 of
the Farm bill that requires geospatial data collected from
farming operations to be portable and standardized. The
Secretary is encouraged to work with the Nebraska Natural
Resource Districts with their efforts in collecting geospatial
data, as deemed appropriate.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries, and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010......................................... 1,253,777 316,340 1,570,117
Budget estimate, 2011........................................ 1,364,673 321,405 1,686,078
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,343,350 316,378 1,659,728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency,
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Food for Peace loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,659,728,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including
a direct appropriation of $1,343,350,000.
Information Technology.--The Committee provides substantial
funding for the information technology [IT] needs requested in
the President's budget proposal. The Committee remains aware of
the unstable status of the Farm Service Agency computer system
which is responsible for the calculation and tracking of the
agency's payments to agricultural producers, and which has
resulted in disruption of services to U.S. farmers and
ranchers.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends that no less than the fiscal year 2010 level shall
be allocated to purchase imagery products to meet programmatic
requirements.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $4,369,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 4,369,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,369,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes,
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs
have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be solely for
operation and administration of the State's agricultural
mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
This program is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010\1\................................. $930,000
Budget estimate, 2011\1\................................ 876,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 876,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2011 to be $876,000,
for indemnity payments to dairy farmers.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm
operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Individual Development grant accounts.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.
Conservation Loans.--Made to farmers, ranchers, and other
entities controlled by farmers and ranchers and primarily
engaged in agricultural production. Direct and guaranteed loans
may be used for conservation projects that support a USDA-
approved conservation plan. Guarantees cover 75 percent of the
principal loan amount.
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.--Made to Indian
tribal members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as
authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development
Grants.--Made to beginning farmers and ranchers who lack
significant assets and have incomes below either 80 percent of
the State's median income, or 200 percent of the State's
poverty income level. Grants provide for matching-funds savings
accounts to be used for specified farming-related expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$5,423,940,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2010 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2010 enacted 2011 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................... 650,000 475,000 650,000
Guaranteed............................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Farm Operating:
Direct................................................... 1,000,000 900,000 1,190,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,650,000
Guaranteed subsidized.................................... 170,000 144,035 170,000
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition................................ 3,940 2,000 3,940
Conservation Loans:
Direct................................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000
Guaranteed............................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans........................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Boll Weevil Eradication...................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm loans...................................... 5,083,940 4,741,035 5,423,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Direct Guaranteed Transfer ACIF
loan loan Total Appropriations to FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................... 75,778 64,830 140,608 321,093 313,173 461,701
Budget estimate, 2011................... 89,867 60,855 150,722 326,120 318,200 476,842
Committee recommendation................ 119,537 67,946 187,483 321,093 313,173 508,576
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of programs under
credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2010 enacted 2011 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 26,520 32,870 44,980
Guaranteed........................................... 5,550 5,700 5,700
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 47,400 54,540 72,100
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 35,100 34,950 38,450
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 23,902 19,920 23,511
Conservation loans:
Direct............................................... 1,065 2,243 2,243
Guaranteed........................................... 278 285 285
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.................... 793 214 214
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 140,608 150,722 187,483
==================================================
ACIF expenses................................................ 321,093 326,120 321,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $80,325,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 83,064,000
Committee recommendation................................ 83,064,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,064,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2010\1\................................. $7,502,601,000
Budget estimate, 2011\1\................................ 7,613,232,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 7,613,232,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $300 per crop per county.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $7,613,232,000 for the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2010\1\................................. $13,878,054,000
Budget estimate, 2011\1\................................ 13,925,575,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 13,925,575,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2011 to be
$13,925,575,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2010........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the
Commodity Credit Corporation's hazardous waste management
program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of
Maine. This project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat
in the Penobscot watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and
six other species of sea-run fish and 100 percent of the
historic habitat in Maine's largest river system for four
additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve
migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the
purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to passage, by
utilizing all appropriate funding sources.
Maine Irrigation.--The Committee commends the Department
for its support of farmers with existing irrigation programs,
through its Environmental Quality Incentives Program. However,
funding for new irrigators, specifically potato farmers in
Maine, has not been equitable in comparison to farmers in other
areas of the country. The Committee directs the Department,
through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and its
Agricultural Management Assistance Program, to work to ensure
that irrigation funding and assistance equitably addresses the
needs of Maine potato farms that lack irrigation programs.
Resources First Foundation.--The Natural Resources
Conservation Service entered to a Memorandum of Understanding
[MOU] with the Resources First Foundation in January of 2008 to
work cooperatively on outreach efforts to private landowners,
conservationists, and others in order to further conservation
efforts through better accessibility and sharing of
information. The Committee supports the intent of this MOU and
directs NRCS to work in good faith to carry out NRCS Agreement
No. 693A758-38.
Rhode Island Restoration.--The Committee is aware of NRCS's
efforts in the State of Rhode Island to restore habitat for
anadromous fish, including herring and American shad, through
the construction of fish passages and dam removal. NRCS is
encouraged to continue these efforts particularly in the
Blackstone, Woonasquatucket, Moshassuck, and Pawtuxet river
watersheds.
Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets
Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $2,021,000
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets. The Committee expects
these functions to be continued under the Office of the Chief
Economist.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources,
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $887,629,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 923,729,000
Committee recommendation................................ 928,979,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $928,979,000
for Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation
includes increases of $13,000,000 for Strategic Watershed
Action Teams, $35,000,000 for Common Computing Environment
refresh, $1,500,000 for streamlining and integrating business
model and information technology tools, $1,095,000 for Snow
Surveys, and $500,000 for soil climate analysis network.
Delta National Priority Area.--The Committee directs the
agency to maintain a national priority area program under the
guidelines of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
[EQIP] in the Delta of the State of Mississippi.
National Geospatial Development Center.--The Committee
encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National
Geospatial Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
For fiscal year 2011, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE--CONSERVATION OPERATIONS--
CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey (WY).................... 200
Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation (HI). 1,400
Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center (MS).......... 939
CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Association (IA)................ 288
Center for Invasive Species Eradication (TX)............ 1,000
Conservation Enhancements (PA).......................... 200
Conservation Internships (WI)........................... 120
Conservation Technical Assistance in New Jersey......... 236
Conservation Technical Assistance in Tennessee.......... 1,000
Conservation Technology Transfer (WI)................... 516
Cover Crop Program (MD)................................. 1,000
Delta Conservation Demonstration (MS)................... 376
Delta Water Study (MS).................................. 235
Farm Viability Program (VT)............................. 300
Grazing Land Conservation (WI).......................... 732
Great Basin Plant Materials Center (NV)................. 269
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment 404
Control................................................
Hungry Canyons Alliance (IA)............................ 282
Illinois Conservation Initiative (IL)................... 1,126
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control........................... 724
Mississippi Conservation Initiative..................... 2,000
Native Plant Initiative (LA)............................ 500
Operation Oak Program................................... 100
Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain (VT).............. 179
Prairie Biomass (IA).................................... 100
Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Initiative (NH)........ 282
Riparian Restoration (NM)............................... 200
Soil Survey (RI)........................................ 134
Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil 545
Conservation Districts.................................
Upper Cedar River Watershed Coalition (IA).............. 150
Watershed Demonstration Project (IA).................... 134
Watershed Planning Staff (HI)........................... 500
West Virginia Conservation Initiative................... 1,000
---------------
Total, Conservation Operations.................... 17,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $30,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 24,394,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,394,000
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. The Committee
encourages NRCS to fund the highest ranked projects identified
in State priority lists and work to complete the final phase of
multi-purpose structures.
The following is a list of congressionally designated
projects:
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE--WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION
OPERATIONS--CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Mine Brook Watershed (CT)........................ 330
Dunloup Creek (WV)...................................... 1,500
Lahaina Watershed (HI).................................. 4,000
Lake County Watershed (IL).............................. 350
Lower Hamakua (HI)...................................... 1,800
Missouri Watershed projects (MO)........................ 2,000
North Fork of Elkhorn Creek (WV)........................ 300
Pocasset River (RI)..................................... 2,000
Southeast Quadrant Drainage and Flood Provention Project 350
(AL)...................................................
Upcountry Maui (HI)..................................... 2,000
Wailuku-Alenaio (HI).................................... 250
---------------
Total, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.. 14,880
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $40,161,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,497,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,497,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2803 of Public Law 110-246.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,497,000
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $50,730,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 50,730,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to
help develop local programs of land conservation and
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to
individual operators for establishing soil and water
conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,730,000
for Resource Conservation and Development.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business--Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $895,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Regional Innovation Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the potential for rural development synergies stemming from
regional planning and coordination. Authority is provided to
reserve up to 5 percent of selected Rural Development programs
for projects in areas engaged in strategic regional planning.
The Secretary is directed to develop and utilize empirical
performance measures to gauge program success. Fiscal year 2011
accomplishments will impact deliberations on potential
increases for fiscal year 2012.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 2011 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 201,987 232,257 237,507
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 468,593 454,383 454,383
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program 39,959 38,374 38,374
Account.................................................
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.............. 4,941 5,046 5,046
--------------------------------------------------
Total RD salaries and expenses......................... 715,480 730,060 735,310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $735,310,000 for salaries and
expenses of Rural Development, which includes $12,000,000 for
the Common Computing Environment.
The Committee rejects the proposal to reduce efforts toward
``maintaining portfolio compliance, safety and soundness.'' In
the face of expanding reliance on guaranteed lending, and
recent exposure of private mortgage and financial industry
weaknesses, the Committee directs the Secretary to ensure
proper lender monitoring and underwriting standards are
maintained. Now is not the time to relax Agency oversight
responsibilities. Further, the Committee rejects the proposal
to implement a ``direct endorsement'' model for the section 502
guaranteed single family housing loan program. If the Secretary
wishes to pursue this option in the future, the Secretary
should submit a report to the Committee detailing the costs and
benefits of direct endorsement, and articulating procedures
that would ensure portfolio quality would be protected while
continuing to reach targeted rural households.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Rural Housing Service is to improve the
quality of life in rural America by assisting rural residents
and communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing
and access to needed community facilities. The goals and
objectives of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic
revitalization of rural areas by providing direct and indirect
economic benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with State and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2010 (budget authority)................. $707,501,000
Budget estimate, 2011 (budget authority)................ 581,714,000
Committee recommendation (budget authority)............. 573,037,000
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes,
rental and cooperative housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. Loan programs are
limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $573,037,000
for the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF].
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in 2011, as well as for administrative expenses. The
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to
the 2010 levels and the 2011 budget request:
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2010 2011 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Levels:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 1,121,488 1,200,000 1,200,000
Guaranteed........................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 24,000,000
Housing Repair (sec. 504)................................ 34,412 34,004 34,004
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 69,512 95,236 69,512
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538)..................... 129,090 129,133 129,133
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... 5,045 5,052 5,052
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 11,448 11,449 11,449
Self help land development loans (sec. 523).............. 4,970 4,966 4,966
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan levels..................................... 13,375,965 13,479,840 25,454,116
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 40,710 75,120 75,120
Guaranteed........................................... 172,800 ............... ...............
Housing Repair (sec. 504)................................ 4,422 6,437 6,437
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 18,935 32,123 23,446
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538)..................... 1,485 12,513 12,513
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... ............... 294 294
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 556 556 556
Self help land development loans (sec. 523).............. ............... 288 288
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 238,908 127,331 118,654
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 468,593 454,383 454,383
==================================================
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses...... 707,501 581,714 573,037
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $980,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 965,635,000
Committee recommendation................................ 971,593,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over-
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $971,593,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The
Committee includes statutory language requiring rental
assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period
of time.
Rental assistance contracts are funded for 1 year
durations. One year contract durations enable the Department to
provide more accurate estimates of contract cost increases and
the number of contracts expiring and requiring renewal.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $43,191,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 18,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,055,000
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes
funding for housing vouchers, a multi-family revolving loan
program, and a program for the preservation and revitalization
of affordable multi-family housing projects. Rural
Development's multi-family housing portfolio faces dual
pressures for loan prepayments and repair/rehabilitation
stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in deferred
property maintenance.
Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather
than funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing
Revitalization Program includes revitalization tools for
maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect tenants
in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided to allow
Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers and the two
programs to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant
protection and project revitalization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,055,000
for the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including
$16,400,000 for vouchers, $2,655,000 for revolving loan funds,
and $25,000,000 for a housing preservation demonstration
program.
The Committee is aware of the large and growing demand for
housing vouchers to protect multi-family housing residents from
substantial rent increases if owners pre-pay their loans and
leave the multi-family housing program. Sufficient funding is
provided for expiring vouchers and new vouchers anticipated to
be issued in fiscal year 2011.
The President's budget states, ``The rural development
vouchers program is designed to provide a maximum of 36 monthly
payments in rent assistance to eligible tenants, subject to
annual appropriations.'' The Secretary is directed to submit a
report to the Committee detailing the number and amount of
initial obligations and renewal history of all vouchers issued
over the life of the program, including identifying the number
that have been terminated after 36 monthly payments. The report
shall also indicate how recipients are advised of the 36 month
term limit.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $41,864,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 37,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,864,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is
authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are
made to local organizations to promote the development of
mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6 to
10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor.
Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors
who work with families in the construction of their homes and
for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the
self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,864,000
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
The Committee is aware that in the decade prior to the
recession, a period of high land value appreciation, self-help
builders, and other nonprofits acquired land in order to
provide future housing opportunities for low- and very low-
income families. This effort was intended to keep land costs
down, a key factor in providing affordable housing.
Now, in many communities, particularly in Western States,
land values have plummeted. This has impacted self-help
organizations to the degree that many are now producing at less
than 50 percent of their capacity to provide affordable
housing.
The Committee believes that self-help housing is an
essential tool to improve homeownership opportunities in rural
America. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report
articulating options to assist self-help housing organizations
encountering falling land values. These options should include
a shared appreciation demonstration project.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $45,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,500,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor
financial assistance to applicant needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,500,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2010 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 31,600 31,000 31,600
Compensation for construction defects........................ 500 ............... 500
Housing preservation grants.................................. 9,400 9,400 9,400
Grants authorized by section 14204 of Public Law 110-246..... 4,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 45,500 40,400 41,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $19,746,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 20,346,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,346,000
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,346,000
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
The following table compares the loan and grant levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2010 levels and
the budget request:
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2010 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan level............................................ 27,319 27,288 27,288
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 9,873 10,473 10,473
Grants....................................................... 9,873 9,873 9,873
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $54,993,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 41,717,000
Committee recommendation................................ 56,580,000
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasi-public agencies,
to construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community
facilities providing essential services to rural residents.
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development, such as fire and rescue services,
healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community,
social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Healthcare and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,580,000
for the Rural Community Facilities Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2010 2011 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Community facilities direct loans.......................... 294,962 295,038 295,038
Community facilities guaranteed loans...................... 206,417 206,405 206,405
------------------------------------------------
Total loan levels........................................ 501,379 501,443 501,443
Budget authority:
Community facility direct loans............................ 3,864 3,924 3,924
Community facility guaranteed loans........................ 6,626 8,153 8,153
Community facility grants.................................. 20,373 29,640 20,373
Economic impact initiative grants.......................... 13,902 .............. 13,902
Rural community development initiative..................... 6,256 .............. 6,256
Tribal college grants...................................... 3,972 .............. 3,972
------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority................................... 54,993 41,717 56,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to Applications.--Community Facilities loans
and grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge,
or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health
care, public safety and other essential public services. The
Committee has been made aware of and encourages the Department
to give consideration to applications relating to essential
community facilities for the following: Alaskan Native Green
House Assisted Living Home (Alaska); Ashmun Bay Boat Access and
Channel Dredging Project (Michigan); Bethel Police Station
(Alaska); City of Belleview Municipal Complex Development
Project (Florida); City of Helena-West Helena GIS Mapping
System (Arkansas); Curry County Adult and Juvenile Detention
Center Renovations and Improvements (Mew Mexico); Dowling Park
Library (Florida); Duncan Township Hall Improvements and
Historic Preservation (Michigan); Duncan Township Office, Fire
Hall Construction (Michigan); Gallup Regional Judicial Complex
(New Mexico); Germfask Township Community/Senior Center
(Michigan); Hagerman Town Hall Renovation (New Mexico);
Ketchikan Gateway Borough Acquisition (Alaska); Les Cheneaux
Emergency Response Vehicle (Michigan); Meadowview Subdivision
Road Upgrade (Alaska); Miller County Conservation District
Facility Renovation (Arkansas); Nome Public Safety Building
(Alaska); Old Forge Arts & Science Center (New York); Quay
County Courthouse (New Mexico); Rural Hawaii Community
Facilities (Hawaii); San Miguel County Courthouse/Public Works
Facility Project (New Mexico); Santaquin Agricultural and
Equestrian Heritage Center (Utah); Seaside School District
Relocation (Oregon); Shiawassee Performing Arts Center
(Michigan); South County Community & Fitness Center Renovation
(Michigan); Togiak Old School Rehabilitation into Community
Center (Alaska); Waianae Intergenerational Community Service
Center, the Hawaii Slaughter-Processing Network, and the Ka
Mahi'ai'Ihi O Wailea (the Sacred Farm of Wailea) (Hawaii); and,
Wasilla Library Relocation (Alaska).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business--Cooperative Service is
to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $97,116,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 81,526,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,689,000
The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by
the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving,
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land,
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs,
and supplying working capital.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human
resources: to identify, train, and provide technical assistance
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive
communications technologies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,689,000
for the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget
request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2010 2011 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Business and Industry guaranteed loans loan levels......... 993,002 941,963 993,000
Budget authority:
Business and industry guaranteed loans..................... 52,927 40,316 42,500
Business enterprise grants................................. 38,727 38,727 38,727
Business opportunity grants................................ 2,483 2,483 2,483
Delta Regional Authority grants............................ 2,979 .............. 2,979
------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority................................... 97,116 81,526 86,689
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian
and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and
assistance initiative.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,536 36,376 33,533
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 8,464 14,034 12,937
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,941 5,046 5,046
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses...... 13,405 19,080 17,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses,
community development corporations, private nonprofit
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of
improving business, industry, community facilities, and
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in
rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2011, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,983,000
for the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,077 33,077 33,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Economic Development Loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credits payment program and created
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural
economic development and job creation projects, including
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a loan program level of
$33,077,000, to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of
Credit and fees on guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant
to section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $34,854,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,054,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,560,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation of centers for rural cooperative development with
their primary purpose being the improvement of economic
conditions in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit
institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be
used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of the project and
associated administrative costs. The applicant must contribute
at least 25 percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection
criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,560,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $2,800,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $3,463,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $20,373,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants.
RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 7,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,350,000
This program, authorized by section 379E of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et
seq.), provides micro-entrepreneurs with the skills necessary
to establish new rural microenterprises, as well as support
these types of businesses with technical and financial
assistance. The program provides loans and grants to
intermediaries that assist micro-entrepreneurs. The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes available $4,000,000
of mandatory funding for fiscal year 2011.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,350,000 for
the Rural Microenterprise Investment Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels:
RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ 11,832 23,523 12,019
Loan subsidy.................................................... 2,500 6,850 3,500
Grants.......................................................... 2,500 850 850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $17,300,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Biorefinery Assistance program, authorized by section
9003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, assists
in the development of new and emerging technologies for the
development of advanced biofuels. The program authorizes grants
for development and construction of demonstration-scale
biorefineries, and guaranteed loans for development,
construction or retrofitting commercial-scale biorefineries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation of
discretionary funds for the Biorefinery Assistance Program. The
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provided $75,000,000
in no year mandatory funding in fiscal year 2009, and
$245,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. Little of this funding has
been obligated and the bulk will be carried over and remain
available in fiscal year 2011.
Rural Energy for America Program
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $39,340,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 39,340,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,340,000
The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under
section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits,
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,340,000
for the Rural Energy for America Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels:
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ 144,209 11,519 11,519
Guaranteed loan subsidy......................................... 19,670 5,340 5,340
Grants.......................................................... 19,670 34,000 34,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to Applications: Rural Business and Renewable
Energy Programs.--The Committee has been made aware of and
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business and renewable energy programs for the
following: Agricultural Processing and Product Development
Center (Alaska); Biorefinery Development Using Multiple
Feedstocks (Louisiana); Biotechnology Asset Inventory (North
Carolina); Blue Mountain Station Product Development Market
Center (Washington); Coffman Cove Marine Repair and Storage
Project (Alaska); Cooperative Biofuel Supply Chain Development
(Minnesota); Development of Fish Disease Laboratory and Bio-
secure Fish Hatchery (Michigan); Economic Development Charette
(Mississippi); Idaho Rural Partnership (Idaho); Integrated Bio-
refinery for Multiple Biomass Feed Stocks (New Mexico);
Mississippi Rural Economic Development Initiative
(Mississippi); National Rural Development Fellows
(Mississippi); Northeast Oregon Grown Meat Processing
Development Plan (Oregon); Revitalizing the I-95 Corridor with
Biotechnology, South Carolina Research Authority (South
Carolina); San Joaquin County Agricultural Center Solar Energy
Project (California); and, WNC Regional Livestock Center (North
Carolina).
In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to
consider applications for grants to rural public television
broadcasting systems.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $568,730,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 534,414,000
Committee recommendation................................ 582,851,000
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $582,851,000
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Home Lands.
The Committee recognizes the special needs and problems for
delivery of basic services to these populations. In addition,
the Committee makes up to $15,000,000 available for the circuit
rider program.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget
request levels:
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 2011 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Water and waste disposal direct loans................. 1,022,162 1,036,294 1,022,156
Direct loans authorized by Public Law 83-566.......... ................ ................ 40,000
Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans............. 75,000 75,000 75,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total loan levels................................... 1,097,162 1,111,294 1,137,156
Budget authority:
Water and waste disposal direct loans................. 77,071 88,914 87,701
Direct loans authorized by Public Law 83-566.......... ................ ................ 3,432
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 469,228 440,510 469,228
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,441 3,500 3,500
Water well system grants.............................. 993 993 993
Water and waste water revolving funds................. 497 497 497
High energy cost grants............................... 17,500 ................ 17,500
-----------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority.............................. 568,730 534,414 582,851
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.--
The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide
support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through
the water and waste technical assistance and training grant
program.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. An appropriation to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in fiscal year 2011, 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 2010 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000
Direct FFB........................................... 6,500,000 4,000,000 6,500,000
Guaranteed underwriting.............................. 500,000 ............... 500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 7,100,000 4,100,000 7,100,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent........................................ 145,000 145,000 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate.................................... 250,000 250,000 250,000
Direct, FFB.............................................. 295,000 295,000 295,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 690,000 690,000 690,000
==================================================
Total, loan authorizations............................. 7,790,000 4,790,000 7,790,000
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 39,959 38,374 38,374
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee rejects the administration's proposal to
place further restrictions on eligible projects under the
electric program. Rural areas face ever increasing requirements
for electricity while facilities are typically 20 to 30 years
old. Substantial demands exist for comprehensive emissions
control upgrades and increased peaking capacity. Diminishing
rural electric cooperatives' access to Rural Utilities Service
loan programs will further disadvantage rural residents by
raising user rates and undermining service reliability. The
Committee expects the Secretary to continue to fund program
authorities, and not to attempt to implement the proposed
program restrictions through the apportionment process.
The Committee recommendation includes a general provision
authorizing a pilot program for the construction of not more
than three facilities for the generation of electricity in
rural America. The Committee is growing increasingly concerned
that many current generation facilities in rural America are
coming to the end of their operational capabilities while
energy consumption is near capacity and expected to exceed
current availability. This pilot program will help rural
electric customers acquire an adequate supply of electricity at
reasonable rates which will otherwise rise to unsustainable
levels, particularly when compared to non-rural areas where
investor owned utilities provide options not available in rural
areas. Because it could take as long as 12 years to build an
electric generation facility, the Committee believes that this
issue should be dealt with during fiscal year 2011 to avoid
rural area power shortages in the near and long term. The
recommendation does not discriminate based on fuel input as
long as emissions are no greater than emissions for natural gas
facilities. While addressing the energy needs of rural America,
the pilot project will also allow the Rural Utilities Service
to establish program subsidy scores by giving the agency
experience with the risks and benefits of financing
contemporary baseload generation facilities.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 level 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and grant levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Grants............................................... 37,755 30,000 37,755
Broadband program:
Treasury rate loans...................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000
Treasury rate loans budget authority..................... 28,960 22,320 22,320
Grants................................................... 17,976 17,976 17,976
--------------------------------------------------
Total DLT and Broadband program level.................. 455,731 447,976 455,731
==================================================
Total DLT and Broadband budget authority............... 84,691 70,296 78,051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,051,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet
health needs in the Mississippi Delta. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical health
care needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
The Committee continues its support for extending high
speed broadband service to the most remote, un-served areas of
rural America. Substantial funds have been made available in
annual appropriations bills, and an unprecedented investment of
$2,500,000,000 in budget authority was provided through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
5). All Recovery Act funds, supporting both loans and grants,
were to be obligated by October 2010.
The Secretary is directed to analyze and report to the
Committees implications of the Recovery Act investments toward
extending high speed broadband access to remote underserved and
un-served rural areas. This report should include lessons
learned and suggestions on improving effectiveness of the
regular broadband program, including the need for loan/grant
combinations in developing successful projects with regular
program funding. The Secretary is directed to utilize
preliminary information provided under the National Broadband
Map initiative mandated by the Recovery Act, and submit the
report no later than 30 days after issuance of the map.
Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended,
$17,976,000 in grants shall be made available to support
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for
rural areas.
Consideration to Applications: Rural Utilities Service
Programs.--The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to give consideration to applications for:
Batesville Water Storage Tank (Arkansas); Bayou Meto
(Arkansas); Campbellton Wastewater Treatment and Bio-solids
Recycling Project (Florida); Cattaraugus County Residential
Wireless Broadband Internet Service (New York); Cedar Glades
Park Municipal Water Supply (Arkansas); City of Barry Water
Improvement Initiative (Illinois); City of Dundee Wastewater
Project (Michigan); City of Lawtey Hydro-Pneumatic Potable
Water Tank Replacement (Florida); City of Riddle Wastewater
Plant Upgrade (Oregon); Crossroads Sewer/Water Project (New
York); Ekwok Landfill Relocation (Alaska); Elk County Rural
Water District #2 (Kansas); Estancia Valley Broadband
Feasibility (New Mexico); Grand Prairie (Arkansas); Green
Township Phase I Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Ohio); Gretna
Wastewater System Improvements (Florida); GRWA Water System
Improvements Lake Source (Michigan); Harrison County/Cadiz
Village Wastewater Plant/Biodiesel Facility (Ohio); Hubbard
Creek Impoundment Improvement (Oregon); Hubbard Creek Water
Distribution Improvement Project (Oregon); JCJC Broadband
Connect (Mississippi); Jemez Pueblo Drinking Water Project (New
Mexico); Keystone Regional Water Reclamation Facility &
Wastewater Collection System (California); Mammoth Community
Water District Drinking and Wastewater Improvements
(California); New Straitsville State Route 93/State Route 216
Waterline Replacement (Ohio); Northern New Mexico Solid Waste
Automation Project (New Mexico); Partridge Creek Diversion
Project (Michigan); Perry City Fiber Optic Network (Utah);
Saline Watershed Alliance Water Supply (Arkansas); Sewer System
Improvements, City of Georgiana (Alabama); Shoshone County
Renewable Energy Project (Idaho); Spalding Avenue Sewage Pump
Station (Oregon); Tremonton City Fiber-Optic Network (Utah);
Tulare County Community Water System (California); Village of
Dunkirk Combined Sewer Elimination Project (Ohio); and, Village
of Richmond Sanitary Sewer Elimination Project (Ohio).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $813,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 836,000
Committee recommendation................................ 821,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's nutrition assistance activities. The Office
has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $821,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
Nutrition Services Incentive Program.--The Committee is
aware that the Nutrition Services Incentive Program [NSIP] is
eligible to receive bonus commodities and has received such
commodities in the past. Commodities from USDA are a
significant component of Federal nutrition programs for the
elderly, including Meals on Wheels that is provided through
NSIP and administered by the Agency on Aging. However, the
Department has determined that the Emergency Food Assistance
Program [TEFAP], the National School Lunch Program [NSLP], and
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] will be given
priority for bonus commodities and bonus commodities will not
be provided to NSIP. The Department is directed to review and
reconsider this decision and report back to the Committee
within 120 days of the enactment of this act.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--This program
seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to
enable them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food
purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the
form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law
110-246, provides that $246,500,000 in fiscal year 2011 from
funds appropriated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program account be used to purchase commodities for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010................................... 9,865,930 6,989,899 16,855,829
Budget estimate, 2011.................................. 18,158,393 ................. 18,158,393
Committee recommendation............................... 18,161,143 ................. 18,161,143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $18,161,143,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2010 estimate 2011 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 9,967,068 10,589,998 10,589,998
School Breakfast Program..................................... 2,920,391 3,117,863 3,117,863
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,640,923 2,728,754 2,728,754
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 387,264 397,226 397,226
Special Milk Program......................................... 12,673 10,597 10,597
State administrative expenses................................ 193,258 208,653 208,653
Commodity procurement and computer support................... 695,401 1,049,290 1,049,290
Team Nutrition............................................... 15,016 15,046 15,046
Food safety education........................................ 2,510 2,517 2,517
Coordinated review........................................... 5,751 5,833 5,833
CACFP training and technical assistance...................... 3,537 3,567 3,567
Child Nutrition Program Studies and Evaluations.............. 3,000 19,711 19,711
Hunger-Free Community Grants................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
Healthier U.S. School Challenge.............................. 699 ............... ...............
School community garden pilot................................ 1,000 ............... ...............
Farm to school tactical team................................. ............... 2,000 2,000
Payment Accuracy............................................. 2,338 2,338 2,338
Financial Management Systems Modernization................... ............... 3,500 1,750
IT Modernization and Support................................. ............... 2,000 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $15,046,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $5,500,000 for food service training
grants to States; $3,000,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $1,000,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; $1,500,000 to assist
USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in development
and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials
in support of nutrition education for program participants and
their families; and $3,246,000 for other activities including
FNS' support of the McGovern Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program under section 3107 (g) of
Public Law 107-171.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.--Section 4304 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act provided $150,000,000 for a
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July
1, 2011. Of this amount, the Committee has included a general
provision to delay availability of $113,000,000 of these funds
until October 1, 2011. The Committee notes that this general
provision does not lower the funding amount provided in the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program, but simply delays a portion of the funding
until the beginning of fiscal year 2012. The full funding
amount of $150,000,000 will be available for the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1,
2011, as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $7,252,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 7,603,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,252,000,000
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 WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,252,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC]. The Committee notes that $125,000,000 in
contingency funds will be available in fiscal year 2011.
The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC
participation in fiscal year 2011 and makes significant program
improvements. The Committee recommendation includes $80,000,000
for breastfeeding support initiatives, $60,000,000 for State
management information systems, and $14,000,000 for
infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Committee
recommendation maintains funding for fruit and vegetable
vouchers for all women as well as implements fruit and
vegetable vouchers for children up to the Institute of Medicine
recommendation, per the budget request.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity Total
reserve Samoa purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010...................... 53,276,816 3,000,000 1,753,365 248,000 58,278,181
Budget estimate, 2011..................... 61,217,446 5,000,000 1,742,844 246,500 68,206,790
Committee recommendation.................. 61,220,196 5,000,000 1,742,844 246,500 68,209,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year
2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP] in the The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to
alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by
increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible households
receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase food through
regular retail stores.
Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, and the Community Food Projects program.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently
in operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food
benefits, the value of which is determined by household size
and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal
Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service
annually revises household benefit allotments to reflect
changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis.
State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their fraud
investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or
experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular
employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a
grant program to States to assist them in providing employment
and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$68,209,540,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. The Committee recommendation includes $1,750,000 for
financial management systems modernization and $1,000,000 for
information technology modernization and support. Of the amount
recommended, $5,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency
reserve. The Committee recommendation includes language that
permits the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct studies and
evaluations consistent with the budget request.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been
important for the Native American population both economically
and nutritionally.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $247,979,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 249,619,000
Committee recommendation................................ 261,619,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60
years of age or older.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes
$246,500,000 available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities in
fiscal year 2011. In addition to the commodities purchased
specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under agriculture
support and surplus removal programs are donated to States for
distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.--This program
provides funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands
in the form of commodities and administrative funds. It also
provides funding for use in non-presidentially declared
disasters and for FNS' administrative costs in connection with
relief for all disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $261,619,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through
each of the programs funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $176,788,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children,
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $246,500,000 for
TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes
$56,000,000 for TEFAP administrative funding and $6,000,000 for
infrastructure grants. In addition, the Committee
recommendation grants the Secretary authority to transfer up to
an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities for this
purpose.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $147,801,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 172,087,000
Committee recommendation................................ 166,587,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto
Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program; and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and Pacific
Island and Disaster Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $166,587,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee
recommendation includes increases of $5,170,000 for improved
program administration, and $9,000,000 to develop and promote
dietary guidelines.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010......................................... 180,367 6,465 186,832
Budget estimate, 2011........................................ 258,780 6,525 265,305
Committee recommendation..................................... 219,780 6,525 226,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 97 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
facilities financing guarantees, (2) Food for Peace, (3)
section 416b Overseas Donations Program, (4) Market Access
Program, and (5) programs authorized by the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most
CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as
assigned to encourage and enhance the export of U.S.
agricultural commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $226,305,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of
$219,780,000. The Committee recommendation includes increases
of $3,430,000 for International Cooperative Administrative
Support Services, $4,004,000 for overseas information
technology support, $4,500,000 for the National Export
Initiative, $1,500,000 for the Borlaug and Cochran Fellowship
programs, $14,600,000 for stabilization and reconstruction
activities, and $10,000,000 for international food security.
Borlaug Fellows Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,000,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural
Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides
training for international scientists and policymakers from
selected developing countries. The fellows work closely with
U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise and apply that
knowledge in their home countries. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this program in helping developing countries
strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $4,500,000 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.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2010 level.
International Food Security.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for the Secretary to provide technical assistance
in the establishment and growth of sustainable food production
and marketing systems in developing countries. This
appropriation should be considered to provide funding apart and
different from funding provided for provincial reconstruction
team activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While the Committee acknowledges the importance of
emergency food assistance, there is an equally important role
for the United States and the Department of Agriculture to play
in assisting developing countries achieve higher levels of
self-sufficiency in order to overcome chronic and acute hunger.
Agricultural systems in many parts of the world face challenges
that stand in stark contrast to those found in this country
where advanced technologies, a network of extension and land
grant services, an expansive transportation network, and other
resources provide protection to American farmers from problems
that bring risk of total failure to crop and livestock
operations in much of the world.
The Secretary has available authorities under the Borlaug
and Cochran fellowships, as well as other existing programs to
provide meaningful leadership toward the goal of global food
security. The Department is home to leading experts in the
fields of crop and livestock production, conservation of land
and water resources, market development, and other elements of
a stable agricultural-based economy. In addition, the
Department has working relationships with the Nation's land
grant system and veterinary community that has fostered a vast
pool of resources that could provide relief to many of the
challenges facing developing countries. The Committee feels
this expertise can provide substantial benefit to help overcome
world hunger and help support national and international
security and stability.
In implementing this directive, the Secretary should give
consideration to a range of activities including opportunities
for individuals from developing countries to participate in
educational and professional experiences in the United States
and, conversely, for U.S. experts in the field of agricultural
development to provide training and other assistance in
developing countries. In addition, the Secretary should provide
grants and cooperative agreements to land grant institutions,
non-governmental organizations, and others with expertise in
the field of agricultural development. The Secretary should
also employ reimbursable agreements in order for USDA personnel
to provide on-site assistance in developing countries. The
Committee strongly feels these efforts should be focused on
specific areas so that the actual establishment of sustainable
systems can be a measurable outcome of this effort.
The Committee notes the historic role of the State
Department and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) in setting the priorities of international
assistance. The Secretary is directed to coordinate any efforts
under this specific appropriation with the Secretary of State
for purposes of determining the specific locations where USDA
assistance would be most beneficial. However, the Committee
expects USDA, in consultation with USAID, to determine the best
approaches to food system development in those locations. In
addition, the Secretary is directed to provide a report to the
Committee by March 1, 2011, on the approach and status of
implementing these activities and a final report by September
30, 2011.
Market Access Program.--The Committee continues the full
mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the
Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C.
5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for
participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses,
trade associations, and other entities.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,812,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,846,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,846,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,846,000 for
administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for
Peace title I agreements.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,690,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,690,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,690,000,000
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Food
for Peace Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote
broad-based equitable and sustainable development; expand
international trade; develop and expand export markets for U.S.
agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage the
development of private enterprise and democratic participation
in developing countries. The Committee strongly supports the
continued efficient operation of this important program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,690,000,000
for Food for Peace title II grants. The Committee does not
support the President's proposal to reduce the amount available
for direct food assistance to cover administrative costs
instead of providing for those costs through the Commodity
Credit Corporation as is the current practice. Instead, the
Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher
level of direct humanitarian assistance to help meet the
world's growing hunger crisis.
The Committee notes that funds provided earlier in response
to the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010 were intended to
provide reimbursement for food assistance diverted from other
recipients in order to meet the immediate crisis in Haiti and
were not intended to be limited only to prospective
requirements on that island. Therefore, funds appropriated at
that time may be used to reimburse obligations incurred for the
purposes provided herein prior to enactment of this act.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $209,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 209,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 209,500,000
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child
development, and food security for some of the world's poorest
children. The program provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,500,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels\1\ subsidy\1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010......................................... 5,500,000 11,130 6,820
Budget estimate, 2011........................................ 5,500,000 18,480 6,884
Committee recommendation..................................... 5,500,000 18,480 6,884
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guarantees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blend of
science and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110-85) reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and
Biologics. FDA is responsible for the life cycle of products,
including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human
and animal drugs, medical devices and biological products to
ensure their safety and effectiveness. FDA is responsible for
the life cycle of the product, including premarket review and
postmarket surveillance of human, animal and biological
products to ensure their safety and efficacy. For Human Drugs
this includes assuring that all drug products used for the
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are safe and
effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization, blood products, and other
biologics.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, and MRIs. Radiological products
include items such as microwave ovens and video display
terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human
exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated
by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation User fees Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010......... 2,344,656 922,280 3,266,936
Budget estimate, 2011........ 2,503,849 1,233,480 3,737,329
Committee recommendation..... 2,503,849 1,233,480 3,737,329
------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,503,849,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$667,057,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections; $61,860,000 in Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act user fee collections; $19,448,000 in Animal
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $5,397,000 in Animal
Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $450,000,000 in
Tobacco Product User Fees; $19,318,000 in Mammography Quality
Standards Act fee collections; and $10,400,000 in export and
certification fees, as assumed in the President's budget. The
Committee recommendation includes bill language which prohibits
FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any program of
user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The Committee recommendation does not include proposed
language regarding generic drug review user fees, reinspection
user fees, export certification user fees, or food inspection
and facility registration user fees. None of these user fee
proposals have been authorized by Congress. The Committee will
continue to monitor any action by the Congress regarding these
proposed user fees.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 782,915 856,383 856,383
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 236,418 261,510 261,510
Field Activities..................................... 546,497 594,873 594,873
==================================================
Human Drugs.............................................. 464,814 484,169 489,169
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 336,588 352,132 357,132
Field Activities..................................... 128,226 132,037 132,037
==================================================
Biologics................................................ 206,438 215,026 215,026
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 166,182 173,875 173,875
Field Activities..................................... 40,256 41,151 41,151
==================================================
Animal Drugs............................................. 135,475 140,673 140,673
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 82,452 86,538 86,538
Field Activities..................................... 53,023 54,135 54,135
==================================================
Medical and radiological devices......................... 315,377 325,726 325,726
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].... 234,974 243,255 243,255
Field Activities..................................... 80,403 82,471 82,471
==================================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........ 58,745 60,975 60,975
==================================================
Other Activities............................................. 143,712 161,659 156,659
==================================================
Rent and related activities.................................. 91,158 105,239 105,239
==================================================
Rental payments to GSA....................................... 146,022 153,999 153,999
==================================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 2,344,656 2,503,849 2,503,849
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses
activities, as requested in the budget: $10,896,000 for cost-
of-living adjustments; $83,000,000 for food safety investments;
$43,323,000 for investments relating to safer drugs, biologics,
and medical devices; and $20,000,000 for regulatory science.
Of the increases provided, $83,000,000 will be used for
food safety investments. This includes funding for FDA to
develop guidances and regulations to serve as a foundation for
prevention-oriented food safety. FDA will also begin work on a
modern import safety system, which will include standards for
evaluating food safety systems in foreign countries, third-
party certification, and an importer registry. This funding
will also allow FDA to conduct additional audits of regulatory
and public health partners, including foreign regulatory
bodies. FDA will add State liaisons to facilitate timely
communication, and will develop a national work plan for
inspecting food manufacturing and distribution facilities. FDA
will expand its capacity to identify products at highest risk
for contamination, to better target and prioritize food safety
efforts. Finally, FDA will hire nearly 100 new food safety
inspectors, increase laboratory capacity, and undertake pilot
programs using track and trace technology.
Of the increases provided, $43,323,000 will be used for
activities related to drug, device, and biologics safety. This
includes funding to increase foreign and domestic inspections
of the most critical and high-risk facilities and allow FDA to
work more closely with regulatory authorities in foreign
countries. FDA will also launch an electronic drug registration
and listing system that will permit efficient screening of drug
imports at the border, start to build a National Medical Device
Registry to link unique identifiers for medical devices, and
expand postmarket surveillance systems so the agency can better
assess the safety of medical products. Further, FDA will more
closely monitor the blood and human tissue supply and will
improve the safety of vaccines through the development of
biological markers to evaluate the safety of vaccine
components.
Of the increases provided, $20,000,000 will be used to
advance regulatory science to help FDA build its scientific
infrastructure, develop standards for new and emerging
technologies, modernize standards for evaluating products, and
accelerate the development of essential medical therapies.
During recent decades, there have been revolutionary
developments in biomedical sciences, and FDA's scientific
expertise and infrastructure have not kept pace with these
advances. These funds will address that gap. These funds will
be used by FDA to strengthen its scientific leadership,
including creating an Office of Science and Innovation. FDA
will also increase and improve its scientific workforce, build
core scientific capacity and expertise in revolutionary new
fields such an nanotechnology, recruit additional scientists in
areas where FDA expertise is lacking, address science issues
for creating a National Medical Device Registry, and promote
scientific collaboration and exchange. Finally, FDA plans to
update and review standards and provide regulatory pathways for
new technologies, including biosimilars.
The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects,
activities, and programs as included in the fiscal year 2011
budget request, unless otherwise specified.
Antibiotics in Shrimp.--The Committee is concerned about
the contamination of farm-raised shrimp imports with banned
antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration currently
inspects less than 2 percent of imported shrimp. The Committee
strongly encourages FDA to develop, in cooperation with State
testing programs, a program for increasing the inspection of
imported shrimp for banned antibiotics.
Antibiotic Development.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about unresolved scientific issues regarding clinical
development in the antibacterial drug arena, which has been
identified as a serious impediment to new antibacterial
development. In its report last year, the Committee directed
FDA to issue clinical trial guidance for several serious
indications. The Committee directs FDA to report to by December
3, 2010, on its progress, including the status of FDA's work
toward a final guidance on community-acquired bacterial
pneumonia as well as how FDA plans to address guidance for
multi-drug and pan-resistant organisms.
The Committee last year also encouraged FDA to identify
ways to promote the development and/or appropriate use of
priority antibacterial drugs for humans for which current
market incentives are inadequate, by working with other
governmental entities and interested parties to begin this
work. The Committee directs FDA to address these issues in its
December 2010 report, as well.
Antimicrobial Resistance.--Antimicrobial resistance, and
the resulting failure of antimicrobial therapies in humans, is
a mounting public health concern. To address this problem, the
Committee recommends that FDA conduct, and make public, an
overall review of the use of antibacterial drugs in food-
producing animals and antimicrobial resistance. In addition,
the Committee recommends that FDA examine the antibacterial
drugs currently approved for use in food-producing animals and
identify mechanisms for assuring that such products are aligned
with current safety standards. FDA should conduct post market
safety reviews to assure that current uses of animal drug
products are used in a manner consistent with the standards
currently used in premarket safety evaluations. The Committee
directs the FDA to report on the progress of this effort within
1 year of the enactment of this act.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the agency to
submit the fiscal year 2012 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2011
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.--The Committee
recommendation includes $22,450,000 for the critical path
initiative, including not less than $6,000,000 for critical
path partnerships as authorized by section 566 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The Committee expects
that this funding will be used to further FDA's work on
critical path opportunities and to promote collaborations with
other Government agencies, academia, patient groups, and other
interested parties such as the Critical Path Institute and the
National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education.
The Committee is also interested in Critical Path activities
that advance safety testing, patient reported outcomes and
accelerating therapies for serious diseases. Wherever possible,
external awards should be competitive.
Worldwide, almost 2 million people die from tuberculosis
[TB] and more than 9 million people develop active disease
every year. The rise of drug resistant TB can result in a
global, untreatable epidemic. The Committee believes that more
effective combinations of treatment are needed. Of the
$6,000,000 provided for critical path partnerships, not less
than $2,000,000 shall be used to support a research partnership
to advance the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of TB. The
Committee directs FDA to report on critical path spending semi-
annually.
Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
for Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability, as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act
of 2007.
E-Pedigree.--The Committee believes that a full electronic
track and trace system for prescription drugs is critical to
improve the security of the drug supply chain from counterfeit
or other substandard products, and to protect consumers. A full
electronic track and trace system would include the
serialization, authentication, and recording the distribution
history (also known as the pedigree) documenting all parties
involved in the prior sale, purchase or trade of the
prescription drug beginning with the manufacturer. The
Committee directs FDA to provide a report to the Committee by
March 1, 2011, that describes the status of developing
standards for track and trace and authentication; the status of
FDA's consideration of technologies for track and trace and
authentication; efforts to harmonize, to the extent practical,
with international standards and efforts; updates of
international efforts for serialization, track and trace, and
authentication; and all other activities planned or undertaken
with the funding provided in fiscal year 2010 and 2011 for
policy development related to the importation of prescription
drugs.
Food Labeling.--The Committee is pleased that FDA
recognizes that importance of accurate food labeling in helping
consumers follow a healthy diet, and is working to ensure that
nutritional claims by food manufacturers are accurate. The
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,400,000, as
requested, for FDA to use data from well-designed studies to
support a modernized food label to encourage Americans to eat
healthier diets and potentially reduce the prevalence of
obesity and its associated health care costs in the United
States. In undertaking this effort, the Committee encourages
FDA to consider concerns addressed to the Committee regarding
false or misleading structure/function claims, ingredient lists
that are difficult to read or may not contain a declaration of
the percentage of key ingredients, exaggerated representations
regarding whole grain content, and a lack of information
regarding caffeine and sugar.
Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommendation includes no
less than $96,966,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of
which $55,545,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs. Total
funding for the Office of Generic Drugs is an increase of
$4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 level, and $2,000,000
above the budget request.
The President's budget proposal acknowledges that generic
drugs now account for 70 percent of all prescriptions dispensed
in the United States, an increase of 20 percent in 4 years.
Further, annual generic drug application submissions have
nearly tripled since 2001. Although the Committee has provided
substantial funding increases for generic drug review, and
remains firmly committed to supporting these activities, the
demand continues to outpace staffing. The administration's
proposals for user fees for generic drug applications have not
yet been authorized by the Congress, but could provide a
significant increase in funding levels for this important
program. The Committee encourages FDA to continue to work with
the generic drug industry and the Congress on this issue.
H1N1 Emergency Use Authorizations.--In response to the 2009
H1N1 influenza pandemic, the FDA issued several Emergency Use
Authorizations (EUAs). The Committee directs FDA to submit a
report to Congress by March 1, 2011, regarding the use of EUA
authorities over the past 24 months, the number of EUA
declarations issued and whether they remain in effect, and
FDA's assessment of whether the EUA authority is sufficient,
including an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of
using EUAs.
Mammography.--The Committee is aware that the Mammography
Quality Standards Act [MQSA] has resulted in improved quality
of mammography to make mammograms a more reliable tool to
detect breast cancers. Appropriated funds pay for inspections
in Government entities and in facilities where at least 50
percent of mammograms performed are funded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical
Cancer Early Detection Program, as well as other important
activities. The Committee recommends no less than $6,918,000 in
appropriated funds, as well as $19,318,000 in user fee
collections, for activities related to MQSA.
Nanotechnology.--The Committee supports the budget increase
of $7,300,000 to expand upon current research in
nanotechnology. The Committee is pleased that FDA has
established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the National
Center for Toxicological Research, and encourages FDA to design
this center to support nanotechnology toxicity studies, develop
analytical tools to quantify nanomaterials in complex matrices,
and develop procedures for characterizing nanomaterials in FDA
regulated products.
Orphan Product Development Grants.--The Committee is
interested in making every tool available to FDA to get new
products to those who suffer from rare diseases, and the
Committee has been encouraged by the success of the orphan
product grant program. FDA has approved 44 products that
received development support from orphan products grants.
However, because the cost of clinical trials continues to
increase far faster than the rate of inflation, FDA's funds are
covering less and less of the true cost of conducting clinical
trials. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes
$16,035,000 for orphan product development grants within the
budget for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. This
represents an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request
and is the first substantial increase in funding for these
grants since fiscal year 2005.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
recommendation includes $6,040,000 for the Office of Women's
Health. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office
of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its
activities, and to enhance its funding if necessary.
Rare Diseases.--The Committee recommendation includes an
increase of $1,000,000 for the office of the Associate Director
for Rare Diseases in the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research [CDER]. The Associate Director coordinates the
development of policies and procedures for the review and
approval of treatments for rare diseases throughout CDER,
ensures appropriate training of staff, establishes consistent
processes for providing advice to sponsors, and oversees the
development of products for rare diseases across multiple
scientific disciplines. In conjunction with the Office of
Orphan Products Development, the Associate Director supports
collaboration among scientists and clinicians throughout FDA,
promoting scientific and regulatory innovations to help
facilitate timely development and approval of new treatments
for patients with rare diseases. The Committee expects the
Associate Director to use these funds to hire additional staff
with specific expertise in facilitating the development of
drugs to treat rare diseases.
Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that
FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity
issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species,
weights, country of origin, and treatment. The Committee
encourages FDA to work with States to more aggressively combat
fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
Seafood Safety.--The Committee is supportive of the current
MOU between NOAA and FDA and encourages both agencies, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of HHS to continue to
work together to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety,
seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. The agreements should
focus on coordination of testing seafood imports, inspection of
imported seafood at both domestic and international facilities,
data standardization and collection, joint training and
outreach for testing facilities, and information sharing. The
Committee encourages an increase in the use of NOAA laboratory
testing and the commissioning of NOAA officers by the Secretary
of HHS as needed in order to increase capacity for seafood
inspection and testing. In addition, the Secretaries are
encouraged to share information with the Federal Trade
Commission as appropriate on consumer protection issues with
respect to fraud in seafood marketing and labeling.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee recognizes that honey
is produced in the United States, traded internationally,and
consumed as both a packaged food and as a food ingredient.
However, there have been instances where manufacturers have
been marketing products illegally as ``honey'' or ``pure honey"
that contain other ingredients. FDA has been in receipt of a
citizen petition regarding a proposed standard of identity for
honey for a significant and unacceptable length of time, and is
directed to respond to this citizen petition within 6 months,
and provide monthly status reports to the Committee on this
effort until a response has been provided. Further, FDA is
directed to work to find ways to protect consumers from
misbranded honey and honey-derived products that are currently
entering the U.S. market.
Traceability.--The Committee directs FDA to initiate one or
more traceability projects on food products and/or ingredients
known to be linked to foodborne disease outbreaks, or that have
significant potential to cause serious adverse health
consequences. When designing traceability projects, FDA should
consider the challenges identified during previous outbreaks or
build on previous efforts to improve product tracing along the
supply chain. To prevent duplication of efforts and to more
rapidly implement these pilot projects, the Committee
encourages FDA to consider pilot projects already under way,
either within the United States or the European Union, when
implementing this directive. The Committee directs FDA to begin
implementation of this project within 1 year, and to report
back to the Committee upon the conclusion of the projects.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2010.................................... $12,433,000
Budget estimate, 2011.......................... 12,433,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,433,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000
for FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to
upgrade FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently
below public safety standards and incapable of performing
agency requirements.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2010........................................ $54,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 59,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 59,400,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $59,400,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund.
Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 704. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 705. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 706. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 707. This section prohibits the use of funds to
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 708. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 709. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 710. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information
Officer.
Section 711. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 712. This section prohibits the use of funds for
user fee proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget
impact information.
Section 713. This section places conditions on the closing
or relocation of Rural Development State Offices.
Section 714. This section prohibits the closing of the Food
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
Section 715. This section limits the amount of funding
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust.
Section 716. This section provides funding for the National
Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or
renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on
botanicals and dietary supplements at the National Center in
conjunction with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. This research aids FDA's regulatory mission in
ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements by
identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of
botanicals and dietary supplements.
Section 717. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year.
Section 718. This section prohibits funds to carry out
certain sections of Public Law 110-246.
Section 719. This section makes certain former Rural
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic
Development loan and grant program.
Section 720. This section provides funding to continue
development of a sterile fruit fly facility.
Section 721. This section makes selected communities
eligible for certain Rural Development programs, pending
receipt of the 2010 Census.
Section 722. This section provides funding for section 6402
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, to
support development and expansion of the specialty cheese
industry.
Section 723. This section authorizes certain watershed
projects.
Section 724. This section modifies matching requirements
for certain research grants.
Section 725. This section provides funds for Rural
Development and the Farm Service Agency information technology
expenses.
Section 726. This section provides funding for the
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers Program and the Durum
Wheat Quality Program as authorized in the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008.
Section 727. This section provides funding to carry out a
pilot program for hardwood trees.
Section 728. This section includes language regarding
reconstituted infant formula.
Section 729. This section includes language regarding
pandemic emergencies.
Section 730. This section includes language regarding
school equipment.
Section 731. This section includes language regarding the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
Section 732. This section includes language for the
establishment of a fee under section 502(h)(8) of the Housing
Act of 1949.
Section 733. This section includes language for the
establishment of a fee under the business and industry loan
program.
Section 734. This section includes language regarding the
disbursement of obligations under the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936.
Section 735. This section rescinds funds for Agricultural
Research Service Buildings and Facilities that are complete or
have not received any appropriated funding in any of the
previous 3 fiscal years.
Section 736. This section provides for the rescission of
funds.
Section 737. This section includes language regarding
acquisition workforce capacity.
Section 738. This section includes language regarding the
Rural Innovation Initiative.
Section 739. This section includes language regarding the
conveyance of land.
Section 740. This section includes language regarding
baseload generation.
Section 741. This section includes language regarding rare
and neglected diseases.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2011, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The
term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most
specific level of budget items identified in the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the accompanying Senate
Report.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2011 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 2011 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 2011:
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004:
WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
State Administrative Expenses
Summer Food Service Program
WIC Infrastructure, MIS, Special Nutrition Education
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC
School Meals Program--Commodity Funding
State Mediation Grants
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 15, 2010,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc an original bill (S.
3606) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other
purposes; an original bill making appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2011 and for other purposes; and an original bill
making appropriations military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with each
subject to amendment and subject to the Committee Spending
Guidance, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the
chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate-
reported bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote
of 17-12, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye Mr. Cochran
Mr. Leahy Mr. Bond
Mr. Harkin Mr. McConnell
Ms. Mikulski Mr. Shelby
Mr. Kohl Mr. Gregg
Mrs. Murray Mr. Bennett
Mr. Dorgan Mrs. Hutchison
Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Brownback
Mr. Durbin Mr. Alexander
Mr. Johnson Ms. Collins
Ms. Landrieu Mr. Voinovich
Mr. Reed Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Specter
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 8A--Slum Clearance, Urban Renewal, and Farm Housing
Subchapter I--General Provisions
Sec. 1472. Loans for housing and buildings on adequate farms
(a) Terms of loan
* * * * * * *
(h) Doug Bereuter section 502 single family housing loan
guarantee program
(1) Short title
* * * * * * *
(8) Guarantee fee
With respect to a guaranteed loan under this
subsection, the Secretary may collect from the lender
at the time of issuance of the guarantee a fee equal to
not more than [1] 3.5 percent of the principal
obligation of the loan. In addition, the Secretary may
collect from the lender an annual fee not to exceed 0.5
percent of the outstanding principal balance of the
loan for the life of the loan.
------
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-387
APPENDIX--H.R. 5426
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
[Sec. 739. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee
collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a
guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the
issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not
more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.]
------
FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT, 2008
TITLE XIV--MISCELLANEOUS
CHAPTER 2--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle C--Other Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 14222. DOMESTIC FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Definition of Section 32.-- * * *
(b) Transfer to Food and Nutrition Service.--
(1) In general.--Amounts made available for a
fiscal year to carry out section 32 in excess of the
maximum amount calculated under paragraph (2) shall be
transferred to the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, to be
used to carry out the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) except
section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21.
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
guidance\1\ bill guidance bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee spending
guidance to its subcommittees for 2011: Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory.............................................. NA 109,217 NA \2\101,226
Discretionary.......................................... 22,838 22,838 NA \2\24,480
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2011................................................... ............ ........... ........... \3\104,776
2012................................................... ............ ........... ........... 4,393
2013................................................... ............ ........... ........... 1,863
2014................................................... ............ ........... ........... 298
2015 and future years.................................. ............ ........... ........... 209
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 33,914 NA 35,728
2011......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee for fiscal year 2011.
\2\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' means
a provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each item, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm).
Following is a list of congressionally directed spending
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.
PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Institute of Food and SRG.................................... Global Change/UVB Radiation......................................... $1,750,000 The President
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.................................... Minor Use Animal Drugs.............................................. $429,000 The President
Agriculture.
Rural Development.............. Rural coop grants...................... Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for $2,800,000 Baucus, Feinstein, Harkin,
Appropriate Technology, Butte, Montana. Johnson, Lincoln, Pryor,
Specter, The President, and
Tester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Funding Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD...................... $3,000,000 Mikulski
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Agricultural Research Center, Pullman, WA......................... $5,000,000 Cantwell and Murray
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT........................... $6,000,000 Bennett and Hatch
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT........................... $3,000,000 Baucus and Tester
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV................... $1,500,000 Rockefeller
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... ARS Biotechnology Lab, Lorman, MS................................. $2,000,000 Cochran
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... ARS Research and Development Center, Auburn, AL................... $6,000,000 Shelby
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... ARS Waste Management Research Facility, Bowling Green, KY......... $5,000,000 McConnell
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac, WI..... $1,000,000 Kohl
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center, Orono, ME.......... $1,500,000 Collins and Snowe
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI.............. $5,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, LA.......................... $1,000,000 Landrieu and Vitter
Agricultural Research Service...... Building and facilities.......... Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE.................... $4,000,000 Nelson, Ben
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Aquaculture Fisheries Center, ARS, Stuttgart, AR.................. $519,000 Lincoln and Pryor
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Biomass Crop Production, ARS, Brookings, SD....................... $1,250,000 Johnson and Thune
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Bioremediation Research, ARS, Beltsville, MD...................... $111,000 Merkley and Wyden
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Biotechnology Research and Development Center, ARS, Washington, DC $3,500,000 Durbin
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Computer Vision Engineer, ARS, Kearneysville, WV.................. $400,000 Rockefeller
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Dairy Forage Research Center, ARS, Marshfield, WI................. $2,500,000 Kohl
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, ARS, Booneville, AR..... $1,805,000 Lincoln and Pryor
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA......... $623,000 Landrieu
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Endophyte Research, ARS, Booneville, AR........................... $994,000 Lincoln, Merkley, Pryor, and Wyden
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease Management, ARS, $200,000 Cantwell
Prosser, WA.
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA..... $3,490,000 Landrieu
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Human Nutrition Research, Boston, MA; Houston, TX; Kannapolic, NC. $1,650,000 Burr, Hagan, Hutchison, and Kerry
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ National Center for Agricultural Law, ARS, Beltsville, MD......... $654,000 Harkin, Lincoln, and Pryor
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, ARS, Mandan, ND........ $543,000 Conrad and Dorgan
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, ARS, Corvallis, OR.... $275,000 Crapo, Merkley, Risch, and Wyden
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Phytoestrogen Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA...................... $1,750,000 Landrieu
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, MD.................................. $408,000 Mikulski
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Sorghum Research, ARS, Little Rock, AR............................ $135,000 Lincoln and Pryor
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Technology Transfer, ARS, Washington, DC.......................... $250,000 Cochran
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Water Management Research Laboratory, ARS, Brawley, CA............ $340,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Agricultural Research Service...... Salaries and expenses............ Water Use Reduction, ARS, Dawson, GA.............................. $1,200,000 Chambliss and Isakson
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department $69,000 Carper and Kaufman
Service. of Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Arthropod damage control Nevada, APHIS NV......................... $1,000,000 Reid
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi $1,500,000 Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker
Service. Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont....... $240,000 Leahy
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Blackbird management, APHIS LA.................................... $94,000 Landrieu
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department of $248,000 Levin and Stabenow
Service. Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Brucellosis eradication in the Greater Yellowstone area states, $650,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi,
Service. Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of Livestock, Risch, and Tester
Wyoming Livestock Board.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ California county pest detection augmentation program, California $619,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Service. Department of Food and Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture......... $208,000 Cochran
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and $223,000 Specter
Service. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Cormorant control, APHIS MI....................................... $139,000 Levin and Stabenow
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Cormorant control, APHIS MS....................................... $223,000 Cochran
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife $103,000 Leahy
Service. Department.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Database of North Carolina's agricultural industry for rapid $208,000 Burr and Hagan
Service. response, North Carolina Depart of Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries $69,000 Landrieu
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Genetically modified products, Iowa State University.............. $259,000 Grassley and Harkin
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Giant Salvinia control, Northwestern State University............. $500,000 Landrieu
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Hawaii interline, APHIS HI........................................ $3,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS HI..................... $2,230,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee........ $1,250,000 Alexander
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Integrated predation management activities, APHIS WV.............. $280,000 Rockefeller
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife $94,000 Leahy
Service. Management Cooperative, Vermont.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University.. $750,000 Brownback and Roberts
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State $404,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Service. University.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe..................... $176,000 Crapo and Risch
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture......... $235,000 Reid
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Technology to combat asian long-horned beetles in New York $500,000 Gillibrand and Schumer
Service. forests, SUNY-College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, MT and WY................ $926,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, and
Service. Risch
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Varroa mite suppression, APHIS HI................................. $469,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Wildlife management and control, APHIS MS......................... $496,000 Cochran
Service.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and expenses............ Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, $519,000 Johnson
Service. Fish, and Parks.
General Provision.................. ................................. Agricultural pest facility, APHIS HI.............................. $2,600,000 Akaka and Inouye
General Provision.................. ................................. Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and $1,000,000 Leahy
Markets.
General Provision.................. ................................. Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, $2,000,000 Kohl
and Consumer Protection.
General Provision.................. ................................. Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products $8,000,000 Cochran and Wicker
Research, Oxford, MS.
General Provision.................. ................................. Speciality Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, $350,000 Kohl
and Consumer Protection.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Childhood Farm Safety, Urbandale, IA.............................. $75,000 Grassley and Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin $376,000 Kohl
Agriculture. Extension.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Dairy Education, Iowa State University............................ $175,000 Grassley and Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ E-commerce, Mississippi State University.......................... $231,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife $475,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, and Hutchison
Agriculture. Research, College Station, TX.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University................ $173,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Food Production Education, Vermont Community Foundation, $116,000 Sanders
Agriculture. Middlebury, VT.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Health Education Leadership, University of Kentucky Research $300,000 McConnell
Agriculture. Foundation.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Wisconsin- $400,000 Kohl
Agriculture. Madison.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach, Ducks Unlimited......... $147,000 Levin and Stabenow
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Iowa Vitality Center, Iowa State University....................... $250,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program, Maine Department of $700,000 Collins
Agriculture. Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College. $150,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Northeast Energy and Environmental Dairy System, PA............... $305,000 Specter
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Nutrition Enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and $950,000 Kohl
Agriculture. Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH...... $700,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Pilot Technology Transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma $209,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker
Agriculture. State University.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, University of $450,000 Collins and Snowe
Agriculture. Maine.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Range Improvement, New Mexico State University.................... $200,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Urban Horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing $376,000 Kohl
Agriculture. Power.
National Institute of Food and Extension........................ Urban Horticulture and Marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, $175,000 Durbin
Agriculture. IL.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Ag-based Industrial Lubricants, University of Northern Iowa....... $405,000 Grassley and Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Agriculture Development in the American Pacific, University of Ha- $400,000 Akaka and Inouye
Agriculture. waii.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Agriculture Technology Innovation, Maryland Technology Development $150,000 Cardin
Agriculture. Corporation, MD.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Agriculture Waste Utilization, West Virginia State University..... $500,000 Rockefeller
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State $350,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture. University.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Biofuels Research, Vermont Technical College...................... $100,000 Sanders
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS............... $480,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of $340,000 Specter
Agriculture. Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Clemson University Veterinary Institute, SC....................... $1,000,000 Graham
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Converting Agricultural Waste to Energy, Kansas Livestock Founda- $2,000,000 Brownback
Agriculture. tion.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Cotton Research, Texas Tech University............................ $200,000 Cornyn and Hutchison
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, Ames, IA.......... $110,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Development of Biobased Chemicals and Materials from Agriculture $125,000 Levin and Stabenow
Agriculture. Raw Materials, Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD................... $500,000 Cardin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University.................. $152,000 Brown, Sherrod
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of $285,000 Nelson, Bill
Agriculture. Central Florida.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand $450,000 Lugar
Agriculture. Markets, Purdue University.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Kansas Advanced Biofueld Development, Kansas Alliance for $2,000,000 Brownback
Agriculture. Biorefining and Bioenergy.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Kansas Center for Advanced Plant Design, Kansas Wheat Commis- $2,000,000 Brownback
Agriculture. sion.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa $95,000 Harkin
Agriculture. State University.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Mississippi Valley State University............................... $1,002,000 Cochran
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the $295,000 Collins and Snowe
Agriculture. University of Vermont, and the University of Maine.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS.................. $2,350,000 Brownback
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Rural Systems, Jackson State University, MS....................... $215,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Shrimp Aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi............ $300,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Law Center, Vermont $343,000 Leahy
Agriculture. Law School.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH............ $500,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and RE/FA............................ Water Pollutants, Marshall University, WV......................... $500,000 Rockefeller
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Advanced Genetic Technologies, University of Kentucky Research $650,000 McConnell
Agriculture. Foundation.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX............... $300,000 Hutchison
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass/Biomass), Washington State $200,000 Cantwell and Murray
Agriculture. University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Agricultural Diversification, University of Hawaii................ $153,000 Akaka and Inouye
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Agricultural Science, The Ohio State University................... $450,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, $300,000 Cornyn and Roberts
Agriculture. College Station, TX.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas $1,000,000 Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor,
Agriculture. Division of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Kansas State and Roberts
University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center....... $150,000 Landrieu and Vitter
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment $337,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture. Station.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Avian Bioscience, University of Delaware.......................... $150,000 Carper and Kaufman
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University $500,000 Baucus, Crapo, Risch, and Tester
Agriculture. of Idaho.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Biodesign and Bioprocessing, Virginia Tech University............. $211,000 Warner and Webb
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration, University of $500,000 Alexander
Agriculture. Tennessee.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Biomass-based Energy Research, Oklahoma State University, $839,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker
Agriculture. Mississippi State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Bioresource Land Use Planning Project, University of Kentucky..... $671,000 McConnell
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, $168,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Agriculture. New Mexico State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Center for Food, Nutrition, and Obesity, West Virginia University. $550,000 Rockefeller
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Center for One Medicine, IL....................................... $500,000 Burris and Durbin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Center for Multi-Functional Prairie Agriculture, SD............... $700,000 Johnson and Thune
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont College of $350,000 Leahy
Agriculture. Agriculture and Life Sciences.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Childhood Obesity and Nutrition, University of Vermont College of $250,000 Leahy
Agriculture. Agriculture and Life Sciences.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, $350,000 Cantwell, Conrad, Dorgan, and Murray
Agriculture. University of Idaho, Washington State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia. $346,000 Chambliss and Isakson
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts.................. $152,000 Kerry
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Cranberry/Blueberry Disease & Breeding, Rutgers, The State $522,000 Lautenberg and Menendez
Agriculture. University of New Jersey.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Crop Diversification and Biofuel Research and Education , $525,000 McConnell
Agriculture. University of Kentucky.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Dairy and Meat Goat Research, Prairie View A&M University......... $200,000 Hutchison
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Dairy Farm Profitability, Pennsylvania State University........... $372,000 Casey and Specter
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Delta Revitalization Project, Mississippi State University........ $176,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Drought Mitigation, University of Nebraska........................ $600,000 Nelson, Ben
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife $575,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, Hutchison, and
Agriculture. Extension Service and Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, Udall, Tom
TX.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Emerald Ash Borer, The Ohio State University...................... $522,000 Brown, Sherrod
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Environmentally Safe Products, University of Vermont College of $250,000 Leahy
Agriculture. Agriculture and Life Sciences.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Floriculture, University of Hawaii................................ $300,000 Akaka and Inouye
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.................... $1,213,000 Bond, Harkin, and Reid
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University..................... $298,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Forages for Advancing Livestock Production, University of Kentucky $473,000 McConnell
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California............... $750,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for $797,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture. Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Grain Sorghum, Kansas State University............................ $1,250,000 Brownback and Roberts
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture, Oregon $142,000 Cantwell, Merkley, Murray, and Wyden
Agriculture. State University, Washington State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Human Nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton $526,000 Landrieu
Agriculture. Rouge, LA.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Illinois Plant Breeding Center, University of Illinois, Urbana- $617,000 Durbin
Agriculture. Champaign, IL.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Inland Marine Aquaculture, Virginia Tech University............... $380,000 Warner and Webb
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University............ $617,000 Bennet and Udall, Mark
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Institute for Food Science and Engineering, University of Arkansas $500,000 Lincoln and Pryor
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of $188,000 Lugar
Agriculture. Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, Purdue University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Leopold Center Hypoxia Project, Iowa State University............. $100,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Livestock & Dairy Policy, Cornell University, NY.................. $180,000 Gillibrand and Schumer
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Maple Research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and $165,000 Leahy
Agriculture. Life Sciences.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University........... $188,000 Lugar
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Midwest Poultry Consortium, Iowa State University................. $250,000 Franken, Harkin and Klobuchar
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Milk Safety, Pennsylvania State University........................ $780,000 Casey and Specter
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, Colorado State $655,000 Bennet and Chambliss
Agriculture. University, Cornell University, University of Georgia.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability, $175,000 Lincoln and Pryor
Agriculture. University of Arkansas.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri- $690,000 Bond
Agriculture. Columbia.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Native Grassland and Sustainability, Kansas State University...... $1,000,000 Brownback
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, New Mexico State Universi- $199,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Agriculture. ty.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative, University of Nevada Reno...... $500,000 Reid
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. New Century Farm, Iowa State University........................... $350,000 Grassley and Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, $654,000 Cochran and Wicker
Agriculture. Mississippi State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Organic Cropping, Oregon State University......................... $142,000 Merkley and Wyden
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Organic Cropping, Washington State University..................... $264,000 Cantwell and Murray
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Pierce's Disease and Invasive Pest Research, University of $2,000,000 Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture. California.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, $200,000 Hutchison
Agriculture. Forestry and Energy Program, Texas AgriLife Research, College
Station, TX.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Preharvest Food Safety, Kansas State University................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Protein Utilization, Iowa State University........................ $500,000 Grassley and Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics, University of Idaho................ $300,000 Crapo and Risch
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University...... $1,000,000 Conrad and Dorgan
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Rural Policies Research Institute................................. $755,000 Harkin
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado State University.................... $237,000 Bennet and Udall, Mark
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Small Fruit Research, Oregon State University, University of $285,000 Cantwell, Crapo, Merkley, Murray,
Agriculture. Idaho, Washington State University. Risch, and Wyden
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico $178,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Agriculture. State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State $350,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom
Agriculture. University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Soybean Cyst Nematode, University of Missouri..................... $556,000 Bond
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, $237,000 Warner and Webb
Agriculture. Virginia Tech.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Sustainable Food and Bio-Energy Systems, Montana State University. $305,000 Tester
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush $200,000 Collins and Snowe
Agriculture. Specialty Crops, University of Maine.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Sustainable Wheat Production and Food Security, South Dakota State $600,000 Johnson and Thune
Agriculture. University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, Louisiana State $180,000 Landrieu
Agriculture. University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Tropical and Subtropical Research/T STAR, University of Hawaii.... $800,000 Akaka and Inouye
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project, Missouri Botanical $588,000 Bond
Agriculture. Garden.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape Foundation Block, $247,000 Cantwell and Murray
Agriculture. Washington State University.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Viticulture Consortium, University of California.................. $1,000,000 Boxer
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Water Conservation, Kansas State University....................... $600,000 Brownback and Roberts
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Wetland Plants, Louisiana State University........................ $200,000 Landrieu and Vitter
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Wheat Genetic Research, Kansas State University................... $1,250,000 Brownback and Roberts
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, WY............... $300,000 Barrasso
Agriculture.
National Institute of Food and SRG.............................. Wood Utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, WV)......... $4,841,000 Burr, Cochran, Collins, Crapo,
Agriculture. Franken, Klobuchar, Landrieu,
Levin, Merkley, Murkowski, Risch,
Rockefeller, Snowe, Stabenow,
Wicker, and Wyden
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey, NRCS Wyoming..................... $200,000 Barrasso
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D $1,400,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service. Councils.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS..................... $939,000 Cochran
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Center for Invasive Species Eradication, Texas AgriLife Research, $1,000,000 Hutchison
Service. College Station, TX.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa $288,000 Grassley and Harkin
Service. Soybean Association.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Conservation Enhancements, Lancaster County Conservation $200,000 Specter
Service. Districts, PA.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation $120,000 Kohl
Service. Association.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS NJ........................ $236,000 Lautenberg and Menendez
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS TN........................ $1,000,000 Alexander
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin......... $516,000 Kohl
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Cover Crop Program, MD............................................ $1,000,000 Cardin and Mikulski
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS........... $376,000 Cochran
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi............................... $235,000 Cochran
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.... $300,000 Leahy
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS WI..................... $732,000 Kohl
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Great Basin Plant Materials Center, NV............................ $269,000 Reid
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, $404,000 Brown, Sherrod, Durbin, Levin,
Service. Great Lakes Commission. Schumer, Stabenow, and Voinovich
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA....................................... $282,000 Grassley and Harkin
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Illinois Conservation Initiative, Illinois Department of Natural $1,126,000 Durbin
Service. Resources.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS KY............................ $724,000 Bunning and McConnell
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS MS...................... $2,000,000 Cochran
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Native Plant Initiative, McNeese State University, LA............. $500,000 Landrieu
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation............ $100,000 Chambliss, Cochran, and Graham
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Phosophorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation $179,000 Leahy
Service. District, VT.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Prairie Biomass, Central College, IA.............................. $100,000 Grassley and Harkin
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Initiative, Society for the $282,000 Shaheen
Service. Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Riparian Restoration, New Mexico Association of Soil and Water $200,000 Bingaman
Service. Conservation Districts.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Soil Surveys, NRCS RI............................................. $134,000 Reed
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation $545,000 Bunning and McConnell
Service. Districts, Kentucky Division of Conservation.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Upper Cedar River Watershed Coalition, Trees Forever.............. $150,000 Grassley and Harkin
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Watershed Demonstration Project, Iowa Soybean Association......... $134,000 Harkin
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... Watershed Planning Staff, NRCS Pacific Island Area................ $500,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Conservation Operations.......... West Virginia Conservation Initiative, NRCS WV.................... $1,000,000 Rockefeller
Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Copper Mine Brook Watershed, Bristol, CT.......................... $330,000 Dodd and Lieberman
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS WV.......................... $1,500,000 Rockefeller
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Lahaina Watershed, NRCS HI........................................ $4,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Lake County Watershed, IL......................................... $350,000 Durbin
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS HI............................ $1,800,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Missouri Watershed Projects, NRCS MO.............................. $2,000,000 Bond
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention North Fork of the Elkhorn Creek, NRCS WV.......................... $300,000 Rockefeller
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Pocasset River, NRCS RI........................................... $2,000,000 Reed and Whitehouse
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Southeast Quadrant Drainage and Flood Prevention Project, Foley, $350,000 Sessions
Service. Operations. AL.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS HI................................. $2,000,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service. Operations.
Natural Resources Conservation Watershed/Flood Prevention Wailuku-Alenaio, NRCS HI.......................................... $250,000 Akaka and Inouye
Service. Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2011
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2010 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2010
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary....................................... 5,285 5,936 5,338 +53 -598
Office of Tribal Relations.................................... 1,000 1,025 1,010 +10 -15
Healthy Food Financing Initiative............................. ................ 35,000 15,000 +15,000 -20,000
Executive Operations:
Office of Chief Economist................................. 13,032 13,175 13,100 +68 -75
National Appeals Division................................. 15,254 15,424 15,424 +170 ................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis..................... 9,436 9,547 9,547 +111 ................
Office of Homeland Security............................... 1,859 1,876 1,876 +17 ................
Office of Advocacy and Outreach........................... 1,700 7,009 1,709 +9 -5,300
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... 61,579 63,719 63,719 +2,140 ................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer..................... 6,566 6,632 6,632 +66 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations............................. 109,426 117,382 112,007 +2,581 -5,375
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights............ 895 907 907 +12 ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 23,922 24,133 24,133 +211 ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... 806 828 814 +8 -14
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments...... (293,093) (277,937) (269,191) (-23,902) (-8,746)
Payments to GSA........................................... 184,812 178,470 178,470 -6,342 ................
Department of Homeland Security........................... 13,500 13,800 13,800 +300 ................
Building operations and maintenance....................... 94,781 85,667 76,921 -17,860 -8,746
Hazardous materials management................................ 5,125 5,139 5,139 +14 ................
Departmental Administration................................... 41,319 30,706 28,706 -12,613 -2,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. 3,968 4,081 4,008 +40 -73
Office of Communications...................................... 9,722 9,839 9,839 +117 ................
Office of the Inspector General............................... 88,725 90,300 89,744 +1,019 -556
Office of the General Counsel................................. 43,551 45,654 44,104 +553 -1,550
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 895 920 904 +9 -16
Economics....................................................
Economic Research Service..................................... 82,478 87,171 83,671 +1,193 -3,500
National Agricultural Statistics Service...................... 161,830 164,721 163,721 +1,891 -1,000
Census of Agriculture..................................... (37,908) (33,494) (33,494) (-4,414) ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,179,639 1,199,669 1,216,825 +37,186 +17,156
Buildings and facilities.................................. 70,873 ................ 44,000 -26,873 +44,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service.................... 1,250,512 1,199,669 1,260,825 +10,313 +61,156
National Institute of Food and Agriculture:
Research and education activities......................... 788,243 838,729 780,720 -7,523 -58,009
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund............... (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) ................ ................
Extension activities...................................... 494,923 479,203 491,231 -3,692 +12,028
Integrated activities..................................... 60,022 24,874 38,577 -21,445 +13,703
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities ................ (10,000) (10,000) (+10,000) ................
Endowment Fund...........................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture....... 1,343,188 1,342,806 1,310,528 -32,660 -32,278
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 895 920 904 +9 -16
Programs.....................................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 904,953 870,576 926,609 +21,656 +56,033
Buildings and facilities.................................. 4,712 4,712 4,712 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....... 909,665 875,288 931,321 +21,656 +56,033
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services........................................ 91,148 97,255 96,955 +5,807 -300
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees (64,583) (60,947) (60,947) (-3,636) ................
collected)...............................................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply
(Section 32):
Permanent, Section 32................................. 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 -100,000 ................
Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section 20,056 20,283 20,283 +227 ................
32)..................................................
Commodity purchases support system.................... (10,000) ................ ................ (-10,000) ................
Payments to States and Possessions........................ 1,334 2,634 2,484 +1,150 -150
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program......... 1,487,121 1,381,119 1,380,669 -106,452 -450
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 41,964 44,192 44,192 +2,228 ................
Limitation on inspection and weighing services............ (42,463) (45,041) (50,000) (+7,537) (+4,959)
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety................. 813 836 821 +8 -15
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................ 1,018,520 1,036,900 1,047,200 +28,680 +10,300
Lab accreditation fees.................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing............ 6,850,135 6,722,462 6,773,749 -76,386 +51,287
=========================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 895 920 904 +9 -16
Agricultural Services........................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,253,777 1,364,673 1,343,350 +89,573 -21,323
(Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480)............ (2,812) (2,846) (2,846) (+34) ................
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (355) (359) (359) (+4) ................
(Transfer from ACIF)...................................... (313,173) (318,200) (313,173) ................ (-5,027)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts............... (316,340) (321,405) (316,378) (+38) (-5,027)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses............................ (1,570,117) (1,686,078) (1,659,728) (+89,611) (-26,350)
State mediation grants.................................... 4,369 4,369 4,369 ................ ................
Grassroot source water protection program................. 5,000 ................ 6,000 +1,000 +6,000
Dairy indemnity program................................... 930 876 876 -54 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency........................... 1,264,076 1,369,918 1,354,595 +90,519 -15,323
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ (650,000) (475,000) (650,000) ................ (+175,000)
Guaranteed.................................... (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (2,150,000) (1,975,000) (2,150,000) ................ (+175,000)
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ (1,000,000) (900,000) (1,190,000) (+190,000) (+290,000)
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,650,000) (+150,000) (+150,000)
Subsidized guaranteed......................... (170,000) (144,035) (170,000) ................ (+25,965)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (2,670,000) (2,544,035) (3,010,000) (+340,000) (+465,965)
Indian tribe land acquisition loans............... (3,940) (2,000) (3,940) ................ (+1,940)
Conservation loans:
Direct........................................ (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) ................ ................
Guaranteed.................................... (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) ................ ................
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans............. (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
Boll weevil eradication loans..................... (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) ................ (+40,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (5,083,940) (4,741,035) (5,423,940) (+340,000) (+682,905)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ 26,520 32,870 44,980 +18,460 +12,110
Guaranteed.................................... 5,550 5,700 5,700 +150 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 32,070 38,570 50,680 +18,610 +12,110
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ 47,400 54,540 72,100 +24,700 +17,560
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 35,100 34,950 38,450 +3,350 +3,500
Subsidized guaranteed......................... 23,902 19,920 23,511 -391 +3,591
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 106,402 109,410 134,061 +27,659 +24,651
Indian tribe land acquisition..................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Conservation loans................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Direct........................................ 1,065 2,243 2,243 +1,178 ................
Guaranteed.................................... 278 285 285 +7 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 1,343 2,528 2,528 +1,185 ................
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans............. 793 214 214 -579 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 140,608 150,722 187,483 +46,875 +36,761
ACIF administrative expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)............ 313,173 318,200 313,173 ................ -5,027
Administrative expenses........................... 7,920 7,920 7,920 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses............................ 321,093 326,120 321,093 ................ -5,027
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund....... 461,701 476,842 508,576 +46,875 +31,734
(Loan authorization)........................ (5,083,940) (4,741,035) (5,423,940) (+340,000) (+682,905)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Service Agency...................... 1,725,777 1,846,760 1,863,171 +137,394 +16,411
Risk Management Agency, Administrative and operating expenses. 80,325 83,064 83,064 +2,739 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs......................... 1,806,997 1,930,744 1,947,139 +140,142 +16,395
=========================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal crop insurance corporation fund................... 6,455,278 7,613,232 7,613,232 +1,157,954 ................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses..................... 15,079,163 13,925,575 13,925,575 -1,153,588 ................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)....... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations..................................... 21,534,441 21,538,807 21,538,807 +4,366 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs................... 30,191,573 30,192,013 30,259,695 +68,122 +67,682
(By transfer)....................................... (316,340) (321,405) (316,378) (+38) (-5,027)
(Loan authorization)................................ (5,083,940) (4,741,035) (5,423,940) (+340,000) (+682,905)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)............. (112,046) (110,988) (115,947) (+3,901) (+4,959)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II-- CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 895 920 904 +9 16
Environment..................................................
Office of Ecosystem Services Management....................... ................ 2,021 ................ ................ -2,021
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations................................... 887,629 923,729 928,979 +41,350 +5,250
Watershed and flood prevention operations................. 30,000 ................ 24,394 -5,606 +24,394
Watershed rehabilitation program.......................... 40,161 40,497 40,497 +336 ................
Resource conservation and development..................... 50,730 ................ 50,730 ................ +50,730
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service........... 1,008,520 964,226 1,044,600 +36,080 +80,374
=========================================================================================
Total, Title II, Conservation Programs.................. 1,009,415 967,167 1,045,504 +36,089 +78,337
=========================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development........... 895 920 904 +9 -16
Rural Development:
Rural development expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................. 201,987 232,257 237,507 +35,520 +5,250
(Transfer from RHIF).................................. (468,593) (454,383) (454,383) (-14,210) ................
(Transfer from RDLFP)................................. (4,941) (5,046) (5,046) (+105) ................
(Transfer from RETLP)................................. (39,959) (38,374) (38,374) (-1,585) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts........... (513,493) (497,803) (497,803) (-15,690) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural development expenses................... (715,480) (730,060) (735,310) (+19,830) (+5,250)
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (Sec. 502)................... (1,121,488) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (+78,512) ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (12,000,000) (12,000,000) (24,000,000) (+12,000,000) (+12,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family..................... (13,121,488) (13,200,000) (25,200,000) (+12,078,512) (+12,000,000)
Housing repair (Sec. 504)......................... (34,412) (34,004) (34,004) (-408) ................
Rental housing (Sec. 515)......................... (69,512) (95,236) (69,512) ................ (-25,724)
Site loans (Sec. 524)............................. (5,045) (5,052) (5,052) (+7) ................
Multifamily housing guarantees (Sec. 538)......... (129,130) (129,133) (129,133) (+3) ................
Multifamily housing credit sales.................. (1,448) (1,449) (1,449) (+1) ................
Single family housing credit sales................ (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop (Sec. 523)......... (4,970) (4,966) (4,966) (-4) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (13,376,005) (13,479,840) (25,454,116) (+12,078,111) (+11,974,276)
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (Sec. 502)................... 40,710 75,120 75,120 +34,410 ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 172,800 ................ ................ -172,800 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family..................... 213,510 75,120 75,120 -138,390 ................
Housing repair (Sec. 504)......................... 4,422 6,437 6,437 +2,015 ................
Rental housing (Sec. 515)......................... 18,935 32,123 23,446 +4,511 -8,677
Multifamily housing guarantees (Sec. 538)......... 1,485 12,513 12,513 +11,028 ................
Site development loans (Sec. 524)................. ................ 294 294 +294 ................
Multifamily housing credit sales.................. 556 556 556 ................ ................
Self-help land dev housing loans (Sec. 523)....... ................ 288 288 +288 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 238,908 127,331 118,654 -120,254 -8,677
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)......... 468,593 454,383 454,383 -14,210 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program......... 707,501 581,714 573,037 -134,464 -8,677
(Loan authorization)............................ (13,376,005) (13,479,840) (25,454,116) (+12,078,111) (+11,974,276)
=========================================================================================
Rental assistance program:
Rental assistance (Sec. 521).......................... 968,612 959,635 959,635 -8,977 ................
Eligible households (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))............... 5,958 ................ 5,958 ................ +5,958
New construction (Sec. 515)........................... 2,030 3,000 3,000 +970 ................
New construction (Farm Labor Housing)................. 3,400 3,000 3,000 -400 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program.................... 980,000 965,635 971,593 -8,407 +5,958
Rural housing voucher program............................. 16,400 18,000 16,400 ................ -1,600
Multifamily housing revitalization program................ 25,000 ................ 25,000 ................ +25,000
Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans.......... 1,791 ................ 2,655 +864 +2,655
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multifamily housing revitalization............... 43,191 18,000 44,055 +864 +26,055
Mutual and self-help housing grants....................... 41,864 37,000 41,864 ................ +4,864
Rural housing assistance grants........................... 45,500 40,400 41,500 -4,000 +1,100
Farm labor program account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (27,319) (27,288) (27,288) (-31) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... 9,873 10,473 10,473 +600 ................
Grants................................................ 9,873 9,873 9,873 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program Account................... 19,746 20,346 20,346 +600 ................
Rural community facilities program account:
Loan authorizations:
Community facility:
Direct........................................ (294,962) (295,038) (295,038) (+76) ................
Guaranteed.................................... (206,417) (206,405) (206,405) (-12) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (501,379) (501,443) (501,443) (+64) ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Community facility:
Direct........................................ 3,864 3,924 3,924 +60 ................
Guaranteed.................................... 6,626 8,153 8,153 +1,527 ................
Grants........................................ 20,373 29,640 20,373 ................ -9,267
Rural community development initiative............ 6,256 ................ 6,256 ................ +6,256
Economic impact initiative grants................. 13,902 ................ 13,902 ................ +13,902
Tribal college grants............................. 3,972 ................ 3,972 ................ +3,972
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants........... 54,993 41,717 56,580 +1,587 +14,863
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments................... 162,103 139,463 160,290 -1,813 +20,827
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service.................... 1,892,795 1,704,812 1,748,975 -143,820 +44,163
(Loan authorization)........................ (13,904,703) (14,008,571) (25,982,847) (+12,078,144) (+11,974,276)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Business Program Account:
(Guaranteed business and industry loans).............. (993,002) (941,963) (993,000) (-2) (+51,037)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed business and industry subsidy.......... 52,927 40,316 42,500 -10,427 +2,184
Grants:
Rural business enterprise..................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ................ ................
Rural business opportunity.................... 2,483 2,483 2,483 ................ ................
Delta regional authority...................... 2,979 ................ 2,979 ................ +2,979
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants........ 97,116 81,526 86,689 -10,427 +5,163
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,536) (36,376) (33,533) (-3) (-2,843)
Loan subsidy.......................................... 8,464 14,034 12,937 +4,473 -1,097
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............. 4,941 5,046 5,046 +105 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund.................. 13,405 19,080 17,983 +4,578 -1,097
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,077) (33,077) (33,077) ................ ................
Limit cushion of credit interest spending............. (44,463) (103,000) (103,000) (+58,537) ................
(Rescission)...................................... -44,463 -103,000 -103,000 -58,537 ................
Rural cooperative development grants:
Cooperative development............................... 7,924 13,424 8,924 +1,000 -4,500
Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas....... 2,800 2,800 2,800 ................ ................
Cooperative research agreement........................ 300 ................ ................ -300 ................
Value-added agricultural product market development... 20,367 20,367 20,373 +6 +6
Grants to assist minority producers................... 3,463 3,463 3,463 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Cooperative development grants......... 34,854 40,054 35,560 +706 -4,494
Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (11,832) (23,523) (12,019) (+187) (-11,504)
Loan subsidy.......................................... 2,500 6,850 3,500 +1,000 -3,350
Grants................................................ 2,500 850 850 -1,650 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment............. 5,000 7,700 4,350 -650 -3,350
Renewable energy program (Rural Energy for America):
(Loan authorization).................................. (144,209) (11,519) (11,519) (-132,690) ................
Loan subsidy.......................................... 19,670 5,340 5,340 -14,330 ................
Grants................................................ 19,670 34,000 34,000 +14,330 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy program..................... 39,340 39,340 39,340 ................ ................
Biorefinery Assistance Program:
(Loan authorization).................................. ................ (49,856) ................ ................ (-49,856)
Loan subsidy.......................................... ................ 17,300 ................ ................ -17,300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biorefinery Assistance Program............... ................ 17,300 ................ ................ -17,300
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Business Cooperative Service........... 145,252 102,000 80,922 -64,330 -21,078
(Loan authorization)............................ (1,215,656) (1,096,314) (1,083,148) (-132,508) (-13,166)
=========================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural water and waste disposal program account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct............................................ (1,022,162) (1,036,294) (1,022,156) (-6) (-14,138)
Public Law 83-566 loans........................... ................ ................ (40,000) (+40,000) (+40,000)
Guaranteed........................................ (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorization....................... 1,097,162 1,111,294 1,137,156 +39,994 +25,862
Loan subsidies and grants:
Direct subsidy.................................... 77,071 88,914 87,701 +10,630 -1,213
Public Law 83-566 loans........................... ................ ................ 3,432 +3,432 +3,432
Water and waste grants............................ 469,228 440,510 469,228 ................ +28,718
Solid waste management grants..................... 3,441 3,500 3,500 +59 ................
Water and waste financing revolving fund.......... 497 497 497 ................ ................
Water well system grants.......................... 993 993 993 ................ ................
High-energy cost grants........................... 17,500 ................ 17,500 ................ +17,500
Rural water and waste disposal.................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Water loan subsidies and grants.......... 568,730 534,414 582,851 +14,121 +48,437
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ ................
Direct, FFB................................... (6,500,000) (4,000,000) (6,500,000) ................ (+2,500,000)
Guaranteed underwriting....................... (500,000) ................ (500,000) ................ (+500,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.......................... (7,100,000) (4,100,000) (7,100,000) ................ (+3,000,000)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) ................ ................
Direct, Treasury rate......................... (250,000) (250,000) (250,000) ................ ................
Direct, FFB................................... (295,000) (295,000) (295,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications................ (690,000) (690,000) (690,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (7,790,000) (4,790,000) (7,790,000) ................ (+3,000,000)
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)........ 39,959 38,374 38,374 -1,585 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 39,959 38,374 38,374 -1,585 ................
Loans Program Account..............................
(Loan authorization)............................ (7,790,000) (4,790,000) (7,790,000) ................ (+3,000,000)
=========================================================================================
Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Broadband telecommunications...................... (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) ................ ................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Grants........................................ 37,755 30,000 37,755 ................ +7,755
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct........................................ 28,960 22,320 22,320 -6,640 ................
Grants........................................ 17,976 17,976 17,976 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants............ 84,691 70,296 78,051 -6,640 +7,755
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service.............. 693,380 643,084 699,276 +5,896 +56,192
(Loan authorization).................... (9,287,162) (6,301,294) (9,327,156) (+39,994) (+3,025,862)
=========================================================================================
Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs 2,934,309 2,683,073 2,767,584 -166,725 +84,511
(By transfer)........................... (513,493) (497,803) (497,803) (-15,690) ................
(Loan authorization).................... (24,407,521) (21,406,179) (36,393,151) (+11,985,630) (+14,986,972)
=========================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 813 836 821 +8 -15
Services.....................................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.................................. 9,859,930 18,153,393 18,156,143 +8,296,213 +2,750
Competitive grants.................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 ................ ................
Nutrition education................................... 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Transfer from section 32.............................. 6,989,899 ................ ................ -6,989,899 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs..................... 16,855,829 18,158,393 18,161,143 +1,305,314 +2,750
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 7,252,000 7,478,000 7,252,000 ................ -226,000
and children [WIC].......................................
Reserve [WIC]......................................... ................ 125,000 ................ ................ -125,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, WIC program.................................. 7,252,000 7,603,000 7,252,000 ................ -351,000
Supplemental nutrition assistance program:
(Food stamp program).................................. 58,278,181 68,206,790 68,209,540 +9,931,359 +2,750
Commodity assistance program:
Commodity supplemental food program................... 171,409 176,788 176,788 +5,379 ................
Farmers market nutrition program...................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 ................ ................
Emergency food assistance program..................... 49,500 50,000 56,000 +6,500 +6,000
Emergency food program infrastructure grants.......... 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................ +6,000
Pacific island and disaster assistance................ 1,070 1,081 1,081 +11 ................
IT modernization and support.......................... ................ 1,750 1,750 +1,750 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity assistance program................. 247,979 249,619 261,619 +13,640 +12,000
Nutrition programs administration......................... 147,801 172,087 166,587 +18,786 -5,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service....................... 82,781,790 94,389,889 94,050,889 +11,269,099 -339,000
=========================================================================================
Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs................. 82,782,603 94,390,725 94,051,710 +11,269,107 -339,015
=========================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Salaries and expenses......................................... 180,367 258,780 219,780 +39,413 -39,000
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (6,465) (6,525) (6,525) (+60) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses............................ 186,832 265,305 226,305 +39,473 -39,000
Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress
Program Account, Administrative Expenses:
Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses:
(transfer to FSA)..................................... 2,812 2,846 2,846 +34 ................
Food for Peace Title II Grants:
Expenses.................................................. 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food for Peace (Public Law 480).................. 1,692,812 1,692,846 1,692,846 +34 ................
=========================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)............... 6,465 6,525 6,525 +60 ................
Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA)............. 355 359 359 +4 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account............. 6,820 6,884 6,884 +64 ................
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child 209,500 209,500 209,500 ................ ................
nutrition program grants.....................................
=========================================================================================
Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs. 2,089,499 2,168,010 2,129,010 +39,511 -39,000
(By transfer)....................................... (6,465) (6,525) (6,525) (+60) ................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 2,344,656 2,503,849 2,503,849 +159,193 ................
Prescription drug user fees............................... (578,162) (667,057) (667,057) (+88,895) ................
Medical device user fees.................................. (57,014) (61,860) (61,860) (+4,846) ................
Animal drug user fees..................................... (17,280) (19,448) (19,448) (+2,168) ................
Generic animal drug user fees............................. (5,106) (5,397) (5,397) (+291) ................
Tobacco product user fees................................. (235,000) (450,000) (450,000) (+215,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (including user fees).......................... (3,237,218) (3,707,611) (3,707,611) (+470,393) ................
Mammography user fees..................................... (19,318) ................ ................ (-19,318) ................
Export certification user fees............................ (10,400) ................ ................ (-10,400) ................
FDA New User Fees (Leg proposals):
Generic drug review user fees......................... ................ (38,015) ................ ................ (-38,015)
Reinspection fees..................................... ................ (27,296) ................ ................ (-27,296)
Food and Feed Export Certification user fees.......... ................ (4,385) ................ ................ (-4,385)
Food Facility Registration and Inspection fees........ ................ (220,200) ................ ................ (-220,200)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FDA New User fees......................... ................ (289,896) ................ ................ (-289,896)
Buildings and facilities...................................... 12,433 12,433 12,433 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals)........... (3,279,369) (4,009,940) (3,720,044) (+440,675) (-289,896)
Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only)................... (3,279,369) (3,720,044) (3,720,044) (+440,675) ................
Total, FDA (excluding user fees)........................ 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 +159,193 ................
=========================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative (54,500) (59,400) (59,400) (+4,900) ................
expenses)....................................................
=========================================================================================
Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 +159,193 ................
Administration.........................................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rural Community Out Migration (Sec. 716)...................... 499 ................ ................ -499 ................
National Center for Natural Products Research (Sec. 718)...... 3,497 ................ 8,000 +4,503 +8,000
Limit Wetlands reserve........................................ ................ -142,000 -75,000 -75,000 +67,000
Limit Conservation stewardship................................ ................ -2,000 ................ ................ +2,000
Limit Grasslands reserve...................................... ................ -14,000 -14,000 -14,000 ................
Limit Farmland protection..................................... ................ -15,000 -15,000 -15,000 ................
Limit Agriculture management assistance (Sec. 1524)........... ................ -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 ................
Limit Environmental Quality Incentives program (Sec. 721)..... -270,000 -380,000 -270,000 ................ +110,000
Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 721).................................... -165,000 -165,000 -165,000 ................ ................
Limit Wildlife habitat incentives............................. ................ -12,000 ................ ................ +12,000
Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 721).................. -76,000 ................ -113,000 -37,000 -113,000
Section 32 (rescission) (Sec. 721)............................ -52,470 -50,000 -50,000 +2,470 ................
Hawaii APHIS facility (Sec. 723).............................. 2,600 ................ 2,600 ................ +2,600
Food Aid Products (Sec. 724).................................. 4,000 ................ ................ -4,000 ................
Hunger Fellowships (Sec. 727)................................. 3,000 ................ ................ -3,000 ................
Market development (WI, VT) (Sec. 728)........................ 3,000 ................ 3,000 ................ +3,000
Specialty market (Sec. 728)................................... 350 ................ 350 ................ +350
Carbon Inventory and Accounting System (Sec. 728)............. 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
International Food Protection Training Institute (Sec. 728)... 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Foodborne Illness Health Registry (Sec. 728).................. 200 ................ ................ -200 ................
At-risk supper program (Sec. 730)............................. 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Methamphetamine inhibitor grant program (Sec. 735)............ 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation (Sec. 738)...................... 250 ................ ................ -250 ................
Hardwood Trees (Sec. 739)..................................... 800 ................ 800 ................ +800
Geographic Disadvantaged (Sec. 741)........................... 2,600 ................ 2,600 ................ +2,600
Durum Wheat (Sec. 741)........................................ 3,000 ................ 3,000 ................ +3,000
Product Access (Sec. 745)..................................... 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Rural Utilities Service baseload generation................... ................ ................ 15,000 +15,000 +15,000
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and -11,000 ................ ................ +11,000 ................
Training (rescission) (Sec. 742).............................
Dairy (Sec. 748).............................................. 350,000 ................ ................ -350,000 ................
H1N1 program (Sec. 746)....................................... 2,000 ................ ................ -2,000 ................
Child Nutrition Reauthorization (Sec. 749) (outlays).......... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and facilities ................ -75,500 -10,066 -10,066 +65,434
(rescission).................................................
Rural Business program (rescission)........................... ................ -20,070 -20,070 -20,070 ................
Departmental Administration acquisition workforce............. ................ 6,500 1,000 +1,000 -5,500
Broadband loan balances (rescission).......................... ................ -15,000 -15,000 -15,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Title VII, General provisions.................... -193,674 -889,070 -715,786 -522,112 +173,284
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
DIVISION B--OTHER MATTERS (PUBLIC LAW 111-118)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Supplemental nutrition assistance program (Sec. 1001) 400,000 ................ ................ -400,000 ................
(emergency)..................................................
=========================================================================================
Total, Public Law 111-118 (emergency)................... 400,000 ................ ................ -400,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Other appropriations............................. 400,000 ................ ................ -400,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Grand total............................................. 121,570,814 132,028,200 132,053,999 +10,483,185 +25,799
Appropriations.................................. (121,278,747) (132,291,770) (132,252,135) (+10,973,388) (-39,635)
Emergency Appropriations........................ (400,000) ................ ................ (-400,000) ................
Rescissions..................................... (-107,933) (-263,570) (-198,136) (-90,203) (+65,434)
(By transfer)....................................... (836,298) (825,733) (820,706) (-15,592) (-5,027)
(Loan authorization)................................ (29,491,461) (26,147,214) (41,817,091) (+12,325,630) (+15,669,877)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)............. (166,546) (170,388) (175,347) (+8,801) (+4,959)
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs................................ 30,191,573 30,192,013 30,259,695 +68,122 +67,682
Mandatory................................................. (22,855,427) (22,759,966) (22,759,966) (-95,461) ................
Discretionary............................................. (7,336,146) (7,432,047) (7,499,729) (+163,583) (+67,682)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)............... 1,009,415 967,167 1,045,504 +36,089 +78,337
Title III--Rural development programs (discretionary)......... 2,934,309 2,683,073 2,767,584 -166,725 +84,511
Title IV--Domestic food programs.............................. 82,782,603 94,390,725 94,051,710 +11,269,107 -339,015
Mandatory................................................. (75,128,010) (86,360,183) (86,365,683) (+11,237,673) (+5,500)
Discretionary............................................. (7,654,593) (8,030,542) (7,686,027) (+31,434) (-344,515)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs 2,089,499 2,168,010 2,129,010 +39,511 -39,000
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 +159,193 ................
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary)................. -193,674 -889,070 -715,786 -522,112 +173,284
Other appropriations (discretionary).......................... 400,000 ................ ................ -400,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 121,570,814 132,028,200 132,053,999 +10,483,185 +25,799
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------