[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 93 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4554, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4554) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments; as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               H.R. 4554

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $2,801,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of 
     representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That the Secretary may transfer 
     salaries and expenses funds in this Act sufficient to finance 
     a total of not to exceed 35 staff years between agencies of 
     the Department of Agriculture to meet workload requirements.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,795,000.

                        Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Financial Officer to 
     carry out the mandates of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 
     1990, $580,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration to carry out the programs funded 
     in this Act, $596,000.


        agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture which are included in this Act, 
     $106,571,000, of which $18,614,000 shall be retained by the 
     Department of Agriculture for the operation, maintenance, and 
     repair of Agriculture buildings: Provided, That in the event 
     an agency within the Department of Agriculture should require 
     modification of space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     transfer a share of that agency's appropriation made 
     available by this Act to this appropriation, or may transfer 
     a share of this appropriation to that agency's appropriation, 
     but such transfers shall not exceed 5 per centum of the funds 
     made available for space rental and related costs to or from 
     this account. In addition, for construction, repair, 
     improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
     equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the 
     programs of the Department, where not otherwise provided, 
     $28,622,000, to remain available until expended; making a 
     total appropriation of $135,193,000.


                       advisory committees (usda)

       For necessary expenses for activities of advisory 
     committees of the Department of Agriculture which are 
     included in this Act, $928,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Agriculture in this Act 
     shall be available to the Department of Agriculture for 
     support of activities of advisory committees.


                       hazardous waste management

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 
     6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961, $15,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That appropriations and funds 
     available herein to the Department of Agriculture for 
     hazardous waste management may be transferred to any agency 
     of the Department for its use in meeting all requirements 
     pursuant to the above Acts on Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Finance and Management, $4,477,000, for Personnel, 
     Operations, Information Resources Management, Civil Rights 
     Enforcement, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 
     Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer, and Emergency 
     Programs, $21,710,000; making a total of $26,187,000 for 
     Departmental Administration to provide for necessary expenses 
     for management support services to offices of the Department 
     of Agriculture and for general administration and emergency 
     preparedness of the Department of Agriculture, repairs and 
     alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses 
     not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical 
     and efficient work of the Department of Agriculture, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided, That this appropriation shall be reimbursed 
     from applicable appropriations in this Act for travel 
     expenses incident to the holding of hearings as required by 5 
     U.S.C. 551-558.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out the 
     programs funded in this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $1,764,000.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the 
     coordination of programs involving public affairs, and for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information and the 
     coordination of information, work and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,198,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 
     [$63,918,000] $62,918,000, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for contracting and other arrangements with public 
     agencies and private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and including 
     a sum not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; and including a sum not to exceed $95,000 for certain 
     confidential operational expenses including the payment of 
     informants, to be expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section 
     1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $25,992,000.

            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economics

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Economics to carry out the programs funded in 
     this Act, $540,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and service relating to 
     agricultural production, marketing, and distribution, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, including economics of 
     marketing; analyses relating to farm prices, income and 
     population, and demand for farm products, use of resources in 
     agriculture, adjustments, costs and returns in farming, and 
     farm finance; research relating to the economic and marketing 
     aspects of farmer cooperatives; and for analysis of supply 
     and demand for farm products in foreign countries and their 
     effect on prospects for United States exports, progress in 
     economic development and its relation to sales of farm 
     products, assembly and analysis of agricultural trade 
     statistics and analysis of international financial and 
     monetary programs and policies as they affect the competitive 
     position of United States farm products, [$54,306,000] 
     $53,565,000; of which $500,000 shall be available for 
     investigation, determination, and finding as to the effect 
     upon the production of food and upon the agricultural economy 
     of any proposed action affecting such subject matter pending 
     before the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency for presentation, in the public interest, before said 
     Administrator, other agencies or before the courts: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for analysis of 
     statistics and related facts on foreign production and full 
     and complete information on methods used by other countries 
     to move farm commodities in world trade on a competitive 
     basis.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, and marketing 
     surveys, as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, $81,424,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.

                    World Agricultural Outlook Board

       For necessary expenses of the World Agricultural Outlook 
     Board to coordinate and review all commodity and aggregate 
     agricultural and food data used to develop outlook and 
     situation material within the Department of Agriculture, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622(g)), $2,498,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

      Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Science and Education to administer 
     the laws enacted by the Congress for the Agricultural 
     Research Service, Cooperative State Research Service, 
     Extension Service, and National Agricultural Library, 
     $520,000.

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901-5908), [$4,000,000] $9,000,000 is appropriated to 
     the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
     Revolving Fund.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for), home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use, and for acquisition of lands by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100, [$693,977,000] $698,787,000: Provided, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for temporary 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $115,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft 
     and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available to conduct marketing research: Provided further, 
     That appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 
     7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed 
     $250,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall 
     each be limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings 
     to be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed 
     $500,000 each, and the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building or $250,000, 
     whichever is greater: Provided further, That the limitations 
     on alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That the foregoing 
     limitations shall not apply to replacement of buildings 
     needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 
     113a): Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall 
     not apply to the purchase of land at Parlier, California, 
     Beckley, West Virginia and Grand Forks, North Dakota: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $190,000 of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
     Science and Education for the scientific review of 
     international issues involving agricultural chemicals and 
     food additives: Provided further, That funds may be received 
     from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or 
     individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any 
     research facility or research project of the Agricultural 
     Research Service, as authorized by law.
       [None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.]


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, [$23,400,000] $38,718,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That 
     funds may be received from any State, other political 
     subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of 
     establishing any research facility of the Agricultural 
     Research Service, as authorized by law.

                   Cooperative State Research Service

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including $171,304,000 to carry into 
     effect the provisions of the Hatch Act approved March 2, 
     1887, as amended, including administration by the United 
     States Department of Agriculture, penalty mail costs of 
     agricultural experiment stations under section 6 of the Hatch 
     Act of 1887, as amended, and payments under section 1361(c) 
     of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301n.); $20,809,000 
     for grants for cooperative forestry research under the Act 
     approved October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-a7), as 
     amended, including administrative expenses, and payments 
     under section 1361(c) of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 
     301n.); $28,157,000 for payments to the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University, for research under 
     section 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222), 
     as amended, including administration by the United States 
     Department of Agriculture, and penalty mail costs of the 1890 
     land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University; 
     [$44,969,000] $52,295,000 for contracts and grants for 
     agricultural research under the Act of August 4, 1965, as 
     amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $103,123,000 for competitive 
     research grants under section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 
     1965, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), including administrative 
     expenses; $5,551,000 for the support of animal health and 
     disease programs authorized by section 1433 of Public Law 95-
     113, including administrative expenses; [$1,818,000] $650,000 
     for supplemental and alternative crops and products as 
     authorized by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3319d); 
     [$400,000] $500,000 for grants for research pursuant to the 
     Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) 
     and section 1472 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as 
     amended (7 U.S.C. 3318), to remain available until expended; 
     [$475,000 for rangeland research grants as authorized by 
     subtitle M of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended;] $3,500,000 for 
     higher education graduate fellowships grants under section 
     1417(b)(6) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(6)), including administrative expenses, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,500,000 for 
     higher education challenge grants under section 1417(b)(1) of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), 
     including administrative expenses; $1,000,000 for a higher 
     education minority scholars program under section 1417(b)(5) 
     of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), including administrative expenses, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $4,000,000 for 
     aquaculture grants as authorized by section 1475 of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3322), and other Acts; 
     [$7,400,000] $8,825,000  for sustainable agriculture research 
     and education, as authorized by section 1621 of Public Law 
     101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5811), including administrative expenses; 
     and [$19,954,000] $19,019,000 for necessary expenses of 
     Cooperative State Research Service activities, including 
     coordination and program leadership for higher education work 
     of the Department, administration of payments to State 
     agricultural experiment stations, funds for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which $9,917,000 
     shall be for a program of capacity building grants to 
     colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 
     30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee 
     University, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b), of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; in all, [$413,960,000] 
     $420,233,000.
       [None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.]


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities and for grants to States and other eligible 
     recipients for such purposes, as necessary to carry out the 
     agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs of 
     the Department of Agriculture, where not otherwise provided, 
     [$34,148,000] $59,836,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                           Extension Service

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative agricultural 
     extension work under the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, to be 
     distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and 
     under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and 
     employees' compensation costs for extension agents and for 
     costs of penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and 
     State extension directors, $272,582,000; payments for the 
     nutrition and family education program for low-income areas 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $61,431,000; payments for the 
     pest management program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$10,147,000] $10,947,000, of which up to $125,000 may be 
     transferred to the Cooperative State Research Service; 
     payments for the farm safety and rural health programs under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $2,988,000; payments for the 
     pesticide impact assessment program under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $3,363,000; payments to upgrade 1890 land-grant college 
     research and extension facilities as authorized by section 
     1447 of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222b), 
     $7,901,000, to remain available until expended; payments for 
     the rural development centers under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $950,000; payments for a groundwater quality program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $11,234,000; payments for the 
     Agricultural Telecommunications Program, as authorized by 
     Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), $1,221,000; payments for 
     youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $10,000,000; payments for a Nutrition Education Initiative 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,265,000; payments for a 
     food safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $2,475,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, $3,341,000; 
     payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, $1,750,000; payments for sustainable agriculture 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,963,000] 
     $3,963,000; payments for rural health and safety education as 
     authorized by section 2390 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 
     2661 note, 2662), $2,750,000; payments for extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328) and Tuskegee University, $25,472,000; 
     and for Federal administration and coordination including 
     administration of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, and the 
     Act of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-349), as amended, and 
     section 1361(c) of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 
     301n.), and to coordinate and provide program leadership for 
     the extension work of the Department and the several States 
     and insular possessions, [$7,117,000] $12,611,000; in all, 
     [$429,200,000] $439,244,000: Provided, That funds hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act of June 26, 
     1953, and section 506 of the Act of June 23, 1972, as 
     amended, shall not be paid to any State, the District of 
     Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, 
     Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa prior to 
     availability of an equal sum from non-Federal sources for 
     expenditure during the current fiscal year.

                     National Agricultural Library

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Library, [$17,845,000] $18,307,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $35,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $900,000 shall be available 
     pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements: Provided further, That $462,000 
     shall be available for a grant pursuant to section 1472 of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3818), in addition to other 
     funds available in this appropriation for grants under this 
     section.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Food 
     Safety and Inspection Service, Federal Grain Inspection 
     Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Packers and 
     Stockyards Administration, $605,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (21 
     U.S.C. 114b-c), necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate 
     pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, 
     quarantine, and regulatory activities; to discharge the 
     authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of 
     March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to 
     protect the environment, as authorized by law, [$438,651,000] 
     $438,901,000, of which $96,660,000 shall be derived from user 
     fees deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User 
     Fee Account, and of which $4,938,000 shall be available for 
     the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
     diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the 
     extent necessary to meet emergency conditions: Provided, 
     That, if the demand for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 
     (AQI) user fee financed services is greater than expected 
     and/or other uncontrollable events occur, the Agency may 
     exceed the AQI User Fee limitation by up to 20 per centum, 
     provided such funds are available in the Agricultural 
     Quarantine Inspection User Fee Account, and with notification 
     to the Appropriations Committees: Provided further, That no 
     funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis 
     eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not 
     require minimum matching by the States of at least 40 per 
     centum: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for field employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
     segment of the agricultural production industry of this 
     country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations 
     or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the 
     Department such sums as he may deem necessary, to be 
     available only in such emergencies for the arrest and 
     eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of 
     animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance 
     with the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended, and section 
     102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, as amended, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged 
     with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 per centum of the current replacement 
     value of the building.
       [In fiscal year 1995 the Agency is authorized to collect 
     fees for the total direct and indirect costs of technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended, without further appropriation, for providing 
     such assistance, goods, or services.]

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $6,973,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, and the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, [$430,929,000] 
     $533,929,000, and in addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to 
     this account from fees collected for the cost of laboratory 
     accreditation as authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 
     102-237: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration 
     and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of 
     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 per centum of the current replacement value of the 
     building.

                    Federal Grain Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, including 
     field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic 
     Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $20,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $11,325,000: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building.

                    inspection and weighing services


         limitation on inspection and weighing service expenses

       Not to exceed $42,784,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for Inspection and 
     Weighing Services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 per centum with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, agricultural cooperatives, and regulatory 
     programs, as authorized by law, and for administration and 
     coordination of payments to States; including field 
     employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $90,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $55,728,000; including funds 
     for the Wholesale Market Development Program for the design 
     and development of wholesale and farmer market facilities for 
     the major metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $57,054,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 per centum with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.


    funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $10,309,000 for formulation and 
     administration of Marketing Agreements and Orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.
       In fiscal year 1996, section 32 funds shall be used to 
     promote sunflower and cottonseed oil exports to the full 
     extent authorized by section 1541 of Public Law 101-624 (7 
     U.S.C. 1464 note), and such funds shall be used to facilitate 
     additional sales of such oils in world markets.

                   payments to states and possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,200,000.


                [perishable agricultural commodities act

       [Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during fiscal 
     year 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture shall require persons 
     filing complaints under section 6(a) of the Perishable 
     Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), to 
     include a filing fee of $60 per petition. In the event of 
     further action on such a complaint during fiscal year 1995, 
     the person or persons making the complaint shall submit a 
     handling fee of $300, which shall be reimbursed by the 
     commission merchant, dealer, or broker involved whenever the 
     Secretary issues a reparation order under section 7 of such 
     Act on the complaint. Such fees shall be deposited in the 
     Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Fund.]

                 Packers and Stockyards Administration

       For necessary expenses for administration of the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act, as authorized by law, and for certifying 
     procedures used to protect purchasers of farm products, 
     including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $5,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $11,989,000.

                       Farm Income Stabilization

 Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity 
                                Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity 
     Programs to administer the laws enacted by Congress for the 
     Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Foreign 
     Agricultural Service, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     $549,000.

          Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
     formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     1301-1393); the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1421 et seq.); sections 7 to 15, 16(a), 16(f), and 17 
     of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 590g-590o, 590p(a), 590p(f), and 590q); 
     sections 1001 to 1004, 1006 to 1008, and 1010 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1970, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1501 to 1504, 
     1506 to 1508, and 1510); the Water Bank Act, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1301-1311); the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101); sections 202(c) and 205 of title II of 
     the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as 
     amended (43 U.S.C. 1592(c), 1595); sections 401, 402, and 404 
     to 406 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 
     to 2205); the United States Warehouse Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 241-273); title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.); and laws pertaining to 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation, $717,958,000; of which 
     $716,333,000 is hereby appropriated, and $1,036,000 is 
     transferred from the Public Law 480 Program Account in this 
     Act and $589,000 is transferred from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Program Account in this Act: Provided, That other 
     funds made available to the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service for authorized activities may be 
     advanced to and merged with this account: Provided further, 
     That these funds shall be available for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $100,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds made available under this 
     Act shall be used: (1) to influence the vote in any 
     referendum; (2) to influence agricultural legislation, except 
     as permitted in 18 U.S.C. 1913; or (3) for salaries or other 
     expenses of members of county and community committees 
     established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation 
     and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, for engaging in any 
     activities other than advisory and supervisory duties and 
     delegated program functions prescribed in administrative 
     regulations.

                              CORPORATIONS

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
     provided.

                   Federal Crop Insurance Corporation


                 administrative and operating expenses

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1516), 
     [$62,796,000] $72,796,000: [Provided, That $12,000,000 be 
     made available for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service:] Provided further, That not to exceed $700 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be used to offer a Federal 
     crop insurance policy in counties on crops where a loss 
     ratio, that has already been recalculated pursuant to law to 
     reflect the premium rates issued by the Corporation for the 
     1994 crop year, is in excess of 1.10 more than 70 percent of 
     the years that a policy has been offered since 1980: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     pay operating and administrative costs that exceed 31 per 
     centum of premium to insurers of policies on which the 
     Corporation provides reinsurance, except to reimburse said 
     insurers for excess loss adjustment expenses as provided for 
     in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement issued by the 
     Corporation: Provided further, That the second proviso shall 
     not apply in any county affected if the Corporation has 
     implemented a nonstandard classification system in such 
     county for those individual farms that have experienced 
     excessive losses since 1980 under which the premium rates, 
     notwithstanding the provision of section 508(d) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act, are increased over comparable 
     rates effective for the 1994 crop, or the insured yields are 
     decreased from comparable yields for the 1994 crop, or a 
     combination of both, by an amount or amounts sufficient to 
     ensure that an estimated loss ratio will not exceed 1.1 for 
     the crop produced on such farms during the 1995 crop year.


                federal crop insurance corporation fund

       For payments as authorized by section 508(b) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, as amended, $219,107,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1995, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $15,500,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1995 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 103-179)), but not to exceed 
     $15,500,000,000, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 
     17, 1961, as amended (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply 
     with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961: 
     Provided, That expenses shall be for operations and 
     maintenance costs only and that other hazardous waste 
     management costs shall be paid for by the USDA Hazardous 
     Waste Management appropriation in this Act.


                          disaster assistance

       Funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation made available 
     under Public Law 103-75 shall remain available through March 
     31, 1995, for payments to producers of orchard crops for 
     losses incurred between January 1, 1994, and March 31, 1994, 
     if the losses are due to freezing conditions in 1994: 
     Provided, That not more than $12,000,000 shall be available 
     for such orchard crop losses: Provided further, That amounts 
     available under this Act shall be subject to the terms and 
     conditions of Public Law 101-624: Provided further, That the 
     use of these funds for these purposes is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, and that such funds shall be 
     available only to the extent that the President designates 
     such use as an emergency requirement pursuant to such Act: 
     Provided further, That the terms and conditions of section 
     521, paragraphs (a)(3) and (4), paragraph (b)(3), 
     subparagraph (c)(2)(C), and subsections (d) and (e), as 
     amended in section 201 of S. 2095 (as reported by the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on June 22, 
     1994) shall apply to all claims for assistance made under 
     this paragraph.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

                 Office of the Assistant Secretary for

                   Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Soil Conservation Service, $677,000.

                       Soil Conservation Service


                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100; purchase and erection or alteration or 
     improvement of permanent and temporary buildings; and 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, [$576,562,000] 
     $582,141,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); of which not less than $5,756,000 is for snow survey 
     and water forecasting and not less than $8,070,000 is for 
     operation and establishment of the plant materials centers: 
     Provided, That except for [$2,399,000] $3,899,000 for 
     improvements of the plant materials centers, the cost of any 
     permanent building purchased, erected, or as improved, 
     exclusive of the cost of constructing a water supply or 
     sanitary system and connecting the same to any such building 
     and with the exception of buildings acquired in conjunction 
     with land being purchased for other purposes, shall not 
     exceed $10,000, except for one building to be constructed at 
     a cost not to exceed $100,000 and eight buildings to be 
     constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed $50,000 per 
     building and except that alterations or improvements to other 
     existing permanent buildings costing $5,000 or more may be 
     made in any fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $2,000 per 
     building: Provided further, That when buildings or other 
     structures are erected on non-Federal land that the right to 
     use such land is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: 
     Provided further, That no part of this appropriation may be 
     expended for soil and water conservation operations under the 
     Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) in demonstration 
     projects: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) and 
     not to exceed $25,000 shall be available for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That qualified local 
     engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem rates to 
     perform the technical planning work of the Service.


                 river basin surveys and investigations

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, in 
     accordance with section 6 of the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1006-1009), $12,970,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $60,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                           watershed planning

       For necessary expenses for small watershed investigations 
     and planning, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), 
     $10,546,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of 
     April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the 
     provisions of laws relating to the activities of the 
     Department, [$65,000,000] $75,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b) [(of which $10,000,000 shall 
     be available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood 
     Control Act approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 
     1006a), as amended and supplemented): Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 per centum of the foregoing amounts shall be 
     available for allocation to any one State]: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of this 
     appropriation is available to carry out the purposes of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), as 
     amended, including cooperative efforts as contemplated by 
     that Act to relocate endangered or threatened species to 
     other suitable habitats as may be necessary to expedite 
     project construction.


                 resource conservation and development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the provisions of the Act 
     of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the provisions of 
     the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), 
     $32,845,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209): Provided, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.


                   great plains conservation program

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect a program of 
     conservation in the Great Plains area, pursuant to section 
     16(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as 
     added by the Act of August 7, 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     590p(b)), $11,672,000, to remain available until expended (16 
     U.S.C. 590p(b)(7)).

          Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service


                   agricultural conservation program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the program 
     authorized in sections 7 to 15, 16(a), 16(f), and 17 of the 
     Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act approved 
     February 29, 1936, as amended and supplemented (16 U.S.C. 
     590g-590o, 590p(a), 590p(f), and 590q), and sections 1001-
     1004, 1006-1008, and 1010 of the Agricultural Act of 1970, as 
     added by the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1501-1504, 1506-1508, and 1510), and including not 
     to exceed $15,000 for the preparation and display of 
     exhibits, including such displays at State, interstate, and 
     international fairs within the United States, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended (16 U.S.C. 590o), for 
     agreements, excluding administration but including technical 
     assistance and related expenses (16 U.S.C. 590o), except that 
     no participant in the Agricultural Conservation Program shall 
     receive more than $3,500 per year, except where the 
     participants from two or more farms or ranches join to carry 
     out approved practices designed to conserve or improve the 
     agricultural resources of the community, or where a 
     participant has a long-term agreement, in which case the 
     total payment shall not exceed the annual payment limitation 
     multiplied by the number of years of the agreement: Provided, 
     That no portion of the funds for the current year's program 
     may be utilized to provide financial or technical assistance 
     for drainage on wetlands now designated as Wetlands Types 3 
     (III) through 20 (XX) in United States Department of the 
     Interior, Fish and Wildlife Circular 39, Wetlands of the 
     United States, 1956: Provided further, That such amounts 
     shall be available for the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, 
     lime, trees, or any other conservation materials, or any 
     soil-terracing services, and making grants thereof to 
     agricultural producers to aid them in carrying out approved 
     farming practices as authorized by the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, as determined and 
     recommended by the county committees, approved by the State 
     committees and the Secretary, under programs provided for 
     herein: Provided further, That such assistance will not be 
     used for carrying out measures and practices that are 
     primarily production-oriented or that have little or no 
     conservation or pollution abatement benefits: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed 5 per centum of the allocation 
     for the current year's program for any county may, on the 
     recommendation of such county committee and approval of the 
     State committee, be withheld and allotted to the Soil 
     Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
     formulating and carrying out the Agricultural Conservation 
     Program in the participating counties, and shall not be 
     utilized by the Soil Conservation Service for any purpose 
     other than technical and other assistance in such counties, 
     and in addition, on the recommendation of such county 
     committee and approval of the State committee, not to exceed 
     1 per centum may be made available to any other Federal, 
     State, or local public agency for the same purpose and under 
     the same conditions: Provided further, That for the current 
     year's program $2,500,000 shall be available for technical 
     assistance in formulating and carrying out rural 
     environmental practices: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $15,000,000 of the amount appropriated shall be used for 
     water quality payments and practices in the same manner as 
     permitted under the program for water quality authorized in 
     chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).


                      [forestry incentives program

       [For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized 
     in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2101), including technical assistance and related expenses, 
     $6,625,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by that Act.


             [colorado river basin salinity control program

       [For necessary expenses for carrying out a voluntary 
     cooperative salinity control program pursuant to section 
     202(c) of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)), to be used to 
     reduce salinity in the Colorado River and to enhance the 
     supply and quality of water available for use in the United 
     States and the Republic of Mexico, $5,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), to be used for 
     investigations and surveys, for technical assistance in 
     developing conservation practices and in the preparation of 
     salinity control plans, for the establishment of on-farm 
     irrigation management systems, including related lateral 
     improvement measures, for making cost-share payments to 
     agricultural landowners and operators, Indian tribes, 
     irrigation districts and associations, local governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities, and other landowners to aid them in 
     carrying out approved conservation practices as determined 
     and recommended by the county ASC committees, approved by the 
     State ASC committees and the Secretary, and for associated 
     costs of program planning, information and education, and 
     program monitoring and evaluation: Provided, That the Soil 
     Conservation Service shall provide technical assistance and 
     the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service shall 
     provide administrative services for the program, including 
     but not limited to, the negotiation and administration of 
     agreements and the disbursement of payments: Provided 
     further, That such program shall be coordinated with the 
     regular Agricultural Conservation Program and with research 
     programs of other agencies.]


                      conservation reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the conservation 
     reserve program pursuant to the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845), $1,743,274,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be used for Commodity Credit Corporation 
     expenditures for cost-share assistance for the establishment 
     of conservation practices provided for in approved 
     conservation reserve program contracts, and for annual rental 
     payments provided in such contracts, and for technical 
     assistance.


                        wetlands reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Wetlands Reserve 
     Program pursuant to subchapter C of subtitle D of title XII 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837), 
     $93,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary is authorized to use the services, 
     facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the purpose of carrying out the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program.

         TITLE III--FARMERS HOME AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Electrification 
     Administration, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and rural 
     development activities of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $568,000.


                    rural development administration

       The Secretary may transfer funds from the Farmers Home 
     Administration in this Act to fund the Rural Development 
     Administration, as authorized by law.

    Rural Development Administration and Farmers Home Administration


              rural housing insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     Rural Housing Insurance Fund, as follows: [$2,323,339,000] 
     $2,400,000,000 for loans to section 502 borrowers, as 
     determined by the Secretary, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; $35,000,000 for section 
     504 housing repair loans; $15,915,000 for section 514 farm 
     labor housing; $220,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; 
     and $632,000 for site loans: Provided, That up to $48,650,000 
     of these funds shall be made available for section 502(g), 
     Deferral Mortgage Demonstration.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: low-income 
     section 502 loans, [$268,105,000] $282,640,000 of which 
     $17,200,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; 
     section 504 housing repair loans, $11,690,000; section 514 
     farm labor housing, $7,911,000; and section 515 rental 
     housing, $115,500,000.
       [In addition, for the cost (as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteed loans 
     under a demonstration program of loan guarantees for 
     multifamily rental housing in rural areas, $1,000,000, to be 
     derived from the amount made available under this heading for 
     the cost of low-income section 502 loans and to become 
     available for obligation only upon the enactment of 
     authorizing legislation.]
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $389,818,000.


                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of forgiveness or payments 
     for eligible households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, $523,008,000; and in 
     addition such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the Rental Assistance 
     Program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for 
     debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as 
     authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to 
     exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit 
     organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other 
     than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant 
     to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That 
     agreements entered into or renewed during fiscal year 1995 
     shall be funded for a five-year period, although the life of 
     any such agreement may be extended to fully utilize amounts 
     obligated.


        self-help housing land development fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans, as authorized by section 523(b)(1)(B) of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $603,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $11,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $14,000.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $618,755,000, of 
     which $540,674,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating 
     loans, $2,465,000,000, of which $1,735,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $230,000,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; [$4,312,000 for water 
     development, use, and conservation loans, of which $1,415,000 
     shall be for guaranteed loans;] Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $1,000,000; and for 
     emergency insured loans, $100,000,000 to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $31,853,000, of which $20,870,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $95,340,000, of which 
     $9,360,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $29,425,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; 
     [$411,000 for water development, use, and conservation loans, 
     of which $31,000 shall be for guaranteed loans;] Indian tribe 
     land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $123,000; and for emergency insured loans, [$26,060,000] 
     $26,290,000 to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $243,766,000.


            rural development insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928 and 86 
     Stat. 661-664, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     Rural Development Insurance Fund, as follows: water and sewer 
     facility loans, [$834,193,000] $976,853,000; community 
     facility loans, $300,000,000, of which $75,000,000 shall be 
     for guaranteed loans; and guaranteed industrial development 
     loans, $500,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to make transfers between 
     the above limitations: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated above, [$17,000,000] $20,000,000 of direct water 
     and sewer facility, $7,800,000 of direct community facility, 
     and $11,000,000 of guaranteed industrial development loan 
     funds shall be available through July 30, 1995, for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: direct water 
     and sewer facility loans, [$115,786,000] $136,466,000; direct 
     community facility loans, [$21,723,000] $21,375,000; 
     guaranteed community facility loans, $3,728,000; and 
     guaranteed industrial development loans, $4,750,000: 
     Provided, That of the amounts appropriated in this paragraph, 
     [$2,360,000] $2,794,000 for direct water and sewer facility 
     loans, [$753,000] $741,000 for direct community facility, and 
     [$103,000] $105,000 for guaranteed industrial development 
     loans shall be available through July 30, 1995, for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $57,294,000.


              rural development loan fund program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $46,000,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans of $88,038,000: Provided 
     further, That through July 30, 1995, of these amounts, 
     $5,519,000 shall be available for the cost of direct loans, 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans, $10,565,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan programs, $1,476,000.

                   Agricultural Resource Conservation

                     Demonstration Program Account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     guaranteed loans, as authorized under sections 1465-1469 of 
     Public Law 101-624 for the Agricultural Resource Conservation 
     Demonstration Program, $5,599,000.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,086,000.


                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     [$2,000,000] $3,000,000.


                 rural water and waste disposal grants

       For grants pursuant to section 306(a)(2) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1926), $500,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, pursuant to section 306(d) of the above Act of 
     which $19,047,000 shall be available, through July 30, 1995, 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, and of which $25,000,000 shall be available for 
     water and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias 
     along the United States/Mexico border, including grants 
     pursuant to section 306C: Provided, That, with the exception 
     of the foregoing $19,047,000, and the foregoing $25,000,000, 
     these funds shall not be used for any purpose not specified 
     in section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act.


                 very low-income housing repair grants

       For grants to the very low-income elderly for essential 
     repairs to dwellings pursuant to section 504 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, $24,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                 Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor

       For financial assistance to eligible nonprofit 
     organizations for housing for domestic farm labor, pursuant 
     to section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1486), $10,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                      mutual and self-help housing

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $12,650,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


              [supervisory and technical assistance grants

       [For grants pursuant to sections 509(g)(6) and 525 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, $2,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended.]


                 rural community fire protection grants

       For grants pursuant to section 7 of the Cooperative 
     Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), 
     $3,400,000 to fund up to 50 per centum of the cost of 
     organizing, training, and equipping rural volunteer fire 
     departments.


                 compensation for construction defects

       For compensation for construction defects as authorized by 
     section 509(c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $495,000, to remain available until expended.


                   rural housing preservation grants

       For grants for rural housing preservation as authorized by 
     section 552 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
     1983 (Public Law 98-181), $22,000,000.

                    rural business enterprise grants

       For grants authorized under section 310B(c) and 310B(j) (7 
     U.S.C. 1932) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act to any qualified public or private nonprofit 
     organization, $47,500,000, [of which $2,000,000 shall be to 
     assist in developing cooperative efforts to provide 
     information and technical assistance to under-represented 
     groups in traditionally agricultural or other natural 
     resource dependent communities for encouraging business 
     development; and] of which $9,500,000 shall be available 
     through July 30, 1995, for assistance to empowerment zones 
     and enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Provided, That 
     $500,000 shall be available for grants to qualified nonprofit 
     organizations to provide technical assistance and training 
     for rural communities needing improved passenger 
     transportation systems or facilities in order to promote 
     economic development.


                     solid waste management grants

       For grants for pollution abatement and control projects 
     authorized under section 310B(b) (7 U.S.C. 1932) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $2,995,000: 
     Provided, That such assistance shall include regional 
     technical assistance for improvement of solid waste 
     management.


              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $2,995,000, to remain available until expended.


          rural technology and cooperative development grants

       For grants pursuant to section 310(f) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a)(11)), [$1,500,000] $2,000,000.


            [local technical assistance and planning grants

       [For grants pursuant to section 306(a)(11)(A) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)), $2,500,000.]


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Farmers Home Administration, 
     not otherwise provided for, in administering the programs 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1921-2000), as amended; title V of the Housing Act 
     of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1471-1490o); the Rural 
     Rehabilitation Corporation Trust Liquidation Act, approved 
     May 3, 1950 (40 U.S.C. 440-444), for administering the loan 
     program authorized by title III-A of the Economic Opportunity 
     Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452 approved August 20, 1964), as 
     amended; the Cooperative Marketing Act of July 2, 1926 (7 
     U.S.C. 451-457); and for activities relating to the marketing 
     aspects of cooperatives, including economic research and 
     analysis and the application of economic research findings, 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1621-1627), and for activities with institutions or 
     organizations throughout the world concerning the development 
     and operation of agricultural cooperatives (7 U.S.C. 3291),  
     and such other programs which the Farmers Home Administration 
     has the responsibility for administering, $700,585,000; of 
     which $37,811,000 is hereby appropriated, $374,255,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from the Rural Housing Insurance Fund 
     Program Account in this Act and merged with this account, 
     $229,735,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Agriculture Credit Insurance Fund Program Account in this Act 
     and merged with this account, $57,294,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Rural Development Insurance Fund Program 
     Account in this Act and merged with this account, $1,476,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from the Rural Development Loan 
     Fund Program Account in this Act and merged with this 
     account, and $14,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Self-Help Housing Land Development Fund Program Account in 
     this Act and merged with this account: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $515,000 of this appropriation may be used for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed [$4,159,000] $4,368,000 of this appropriation shall be 
     available for contracting with the National Rural Water 
     Association or other equally qualified national organization 
     for a circuit rider program to provide technical assistance 
     for rural water systems: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall be available through cooperative agreements 
     to assist in developing efforts to provide information and 
     technical assistance to traditionally under-represented 
     communities to encourage business community development.

                  Rural Electrification Administration

       To carry into effect the provisions of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901-
     950(b)), as follows:


       rural electrification and telephone loans program account

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural 
     electrification loans, $100,000,000; 5 percent rural 
     telephone loans, $75,000,000; cost of money rural telephone 
     loans, $198,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $575,250,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, $420,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), as follows: cost of direct loans, [$19,120,000] 
     $14,807,000; cost of municipal rate loans, $46,020,000; cost 
     of money rural telephone loans, $40,000; cost of loans 
     guaranteed pursuant to section 306, $450,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $29,982,000.

                  rural telephone bank program account

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out its 
     authorized programs for the current fiscal year. During 
     fiscal year 1995 and within the resources and authority 
     available, gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 935), 
     [$2,728,000] $770,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $8,794,000.


              distance learning and medical link programs

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the programs 
     authorized in sections 2331-2335 of Public Law 101-624, 
     $7,500,000, to remain available until expended.


             rea economic development loans program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans, as authorized under section 313 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act, for the purpose of promoting rural 
     economic development and job creation projects, $12,865,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,077,000.

                         salaries and expenses


                     (Including Transfers of Funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     901-950(b)), and to administer the loan and loan guarantee 
     programs for Community Antenna Television facilities as 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1921-1995), and for which commitments were made 
     prior to fiscal year 1994, including not to exceed $7,000 for 
     financial and credit reports, funds for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $103,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $38,776,000; of which 
     $29,982,000 shall be derived by transfer from the Rural 
     Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account in this 
     Act and $8,794,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Rural Telephone Bank Program Account in this Act: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used to authorize 
     the transfer of additional funds to this account from the 
     Rural Telephone Bank.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, $540,000.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                        child nutrition programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769b), and the applicable 
     provisions other than sections 3 and 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773-1785, and 1788-1789); 
     $7,451,351,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1996, of which $2,202,274,000 is hereby appropriated and 
     $5,249,077,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds 
     available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c): [Provided, That funds appropriated for the 
     purpose of section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 shall 
     be allocated among the States but the distribution of such 
     funds to an individual State is contingent upon that State's 
     agreement to participate in studies and surveys of programs 
     authorized under the National School Lunch Act and the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966, when such studies and surveys have 
     been directed by the Congress and requested by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture: Provided further, That if the Secretary of 
     Agriculture determines that a State's administration of any 
     program under the National School Lunch Act or the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (other than section 17), or the 
     regulations issued pursuant to these Acts, is seriously 
     deficient, and the State fails to correct the deficiency 
     within a specified period of time, the Secretary may withhold 
     from the State some or all of the funds allocated to the 
     State under section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and 
     under section 13(k)(1) of the National School Lunch Act; upon 
     a subsequent determination by the Secretary that the programs 
     are operated in an acceptable manner some or all of the funds 
     withheld may be allocated: Provided further, That only final 
     reimbursement claims for service of meals, supplements, and 
     milk submitted to State agencies by eligible schools, summer 
     camps, institutions, and service institutions within sixty 
     days following the month for which the reimbursement is 
     claimed shall be eligible for reimbursement from funds 
     appropriated under this Act. States may receive program funds 
     appropriated under this Act for meals, supplements, and milk 
     served during any month only if the final program operations 
     report for such month is submitted to the Department within 
     ninety days following that month. Exceptions to these claims 
     or reports submission requirements may be made at the 
     discretion of the Secretary:] Provided, [further,] That up to 
     $3,849,000 shall be available for independent verification of 
     school food service claims: Provided further, That 
     [$1,706,000] $1,853,000 shall be available to provide 
     financial and other assistance to operate the Food Service 
     Management Institute.


                          special milk program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special milk 
     program, as authorized by section 3 of the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772), $18,089,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1996. [Only final 
     reimbursement claims for milk submitted to State agencies 
     within sixty days following the month for which the 
     reimbursement is claimed shall be eligible for reimbursement 
     from funds appropriated under this Act. States may receive 
     program funds appropriated under this Act only if the final 
     program operations report for such month is submitted to the 
     Department within ninety days following that month. 
     Exceptions to these claims or reports submission requirements 
     may be made at the discretion of the Secretary.]


  special supplemental food program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (wic)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 17 of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), $3,470,000,000, 
     to remain available through September 30, 1996, of which up 
     to [$5,500,000] $8,000,000 may be used to carry out the 
     [farmer's] farmers' market coupon program: Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay 
     administrative expenses of WIC clinics except those that have 
     an announced policy of prohibiting smoking within the space 
     used to carry out the program[: Provided further, That no 
     State will incur an interest liability to the Federal 
     Government on WIC rebate funds provided that all interest 
     earned by the State on these funds is used for program 
     purposes].


                  commodity supplemental food program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), including not less than $8,000,000 for the 
     projects in Detroit, New Orleans, and Des Moines, 
     $94,500,000, to remain available through September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program.


                           food stamp program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011-2029), [$28,817,457,000] $28,830,710,000: 
     Provided, That funds provided herein shall remain available 
     through September 30, 1995, in accordance with section 18(a) 
     of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That $2,500,000,000 
     of the foregoing amount shall be placed in reserve for use 
     only in such amounts and at such times as may become 
     necessary to carry out program operations: Provided further, 
     That funds provided herein shall be expended in accordance 
     with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be subject to any work registration 
     or work fare requirements as may be required by law: Provided 
     further, That $1,143,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be 
     available for Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2028, of which $12,472,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
     for the Cattle Tick Eradication Project: Provided further, 
     That no funds provided herein shall be available to provide 
     food assistance in cash in any county not covered by a 
     demonstration project that received final approval from the 
     Secretary on or before July 1, 1994.


              food donations programs for selected groups

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2013(b)), section 601 of Public Law 96-597 (48 U.S.C. 1469d) 
     and section 311 of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 3030a), [$183,154,000] $188,404,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 1996.
       For necessary expenses to carry out section 110 of the 
     Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, $40,000,000.


                 the emergency food assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, $40,000,000: Provided, 
     That, in accordance with section 202 of Public Law 98-92, 
     these funds shall be available only if the Secretary 
     determines the existence of excess commodities.
       [For purchases of commodities to carry out the Emergency 
     Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, $40,000,000.]

                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $106,465,000; of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development 
     activities abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to 
     coordinate and integrate activities of the Department in 
     connection with foreign agricultural work, including not to 
     exceed $128,000 for representation allowances and for 
     expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 
     1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $118,011,000, of which $4,914,000 may 
     be transferred from Commodity Credit Corporation funds, 
     $2,792,000 may be transferred from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Program Account in this Act, and $1,425,000 may 
     be transferred from the Public Law 480 Program Account in 
     this Act: Provided, That in addition, funds available to the 
     Department of Agriculture shall be available to assist an 
     international organization in meeting the costs, including 
     salaries, fringe benefits and other associated costs, related 
     to the employment by the organization of Federal personnel 
     that may transfer to the organization under the provisions of 
     5 U.S.C. 3581-3584, or of other well-qualified United States 
     citizens, for the performance of activities that contribute 
     to increased understanding of international agricultural 
     issues, with transfer of funds for this purpose from one 
     appropriation to another or to a single account authorized, 
     such funds remaining available until expended: Provided 
     further, That the Service may utilize advances of funds, or 
     reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made on behalf 
     of Federal agencies, public and private organizations and 
     institutions under agreements executed pursuant to the 
     agricultural food production assistance programs (7 U.S.C. 
     1736) and the foreign assistance programs of the 
     International Development Cooperation Administration (22 
     U.S.C. 2392).
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.


       scientific activities overseas (foreign currency program)

                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For payments in foreign currencies owed to or owned by the 
     United States for research activities authorized by section 
     104(c)(7) of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704(c)(7)), not 
     to exceed $1,062,000: Provided, That not to exceed $25,000 of 
     these funds shall be available for payments in foreign 
     currencies for expenses of employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), as amended by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                    Public Law 480 Program Accounts


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-
     1715, 1721-1726, 1727-1727f, 1731-1736g), as follows: (1) 
     $291,342,000 for Public Law 480 title I credit, including 
     Food for Progress programs; (2) $29,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to title I of 
     said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended; 
     (3) $821,100,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities 
     supplied in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to 
     title II of said Act; and (4) $157,442,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad pursuant to title III of said Act: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 15 per centum of the funds made 
     available to carry out any title of said Act may be used to 
     carry out any other title of said Act: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and the Food for Progress 
     Act of 1985, as amended, including the cost of modifying 
     credit agreements under said Act, $236,162,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for 
     Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds 
     appropriated for Public Law 480 are utilized, $2,461,000.


                        short-term export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,000,000,000 in credit guarantees under its 
     export credit guarantee program for short-term credit 
     extended to finance the export sales of United States 
     agricultural commodities and the products thereof, as 
     authorized by section 211(b)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


                       intermediate export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its export 
     guarantee program for intermediate-term credit extended to 
     finance the export sales of United States agricultural 
     commodities and the products thereof, as authorized by 
     section 211(b)(2) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641).


                   emerging democracies export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $200,000,000 in credit guarantees under its Export 
     Guarantee Program for credit expended to finance the export 
     sales of United States agricultural commodities and the 
     products thereof to emerging democracies, as authorized by 
     section 1542 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5622 note).


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out CCC's Export 
     Guarantee Program, GSM 102 and GSM 103, $3,381,000; to cover 
     common overhead expenses as permitted by section 11 of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act and in conformity 
     with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of which not to 
     exceed $2,792,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for the salaries and expenses of the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service, and of which not to exceed $589,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia 
     or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; [$914,394,000] 
     $767,156,000, of which not to exceed $79,423,000 in fees 
     pursuant to section 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act may be credited to this appropriation and remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That fees derived from 
     applications received during fiscal year 1995 shall be 
     subject to the fiscal year 1995 limitation[: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be used to develop, 
     establish, or operate any program of user fees authorized by 
     31 U.S.C. 9701.]
       [None of the funds in this Act may be used to enforce rules 
     or regulations for a selenium supplement level in animal 
     feeds below 0.3 parts per million.]
       In addition, of the foregoing amount such sums as may be 
     necessary may be used for the inspection of mammography 
     facilities, notwithstanding section 354(r) of the Public 
     Health Service Act. Fees collected under said Act shall be 
     credited to the foregoing account and shall remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition, $150,800,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation, from fees established and collected to cover 
     the costs of regulation of products under the jurisdiction of 
     the Food and Drug Administration, to remain available until 
     expended.
       None of the funds in this Act may be used to enforce the 
     permitted levels and conditions of use for the nutrient 
     selenium, as revised in the Federal Register for September 
     13, 1993. The permitted levels and conditions of use for the 
     nutrient selenium are deemed to be the levels and conditions 
     set forth in section 573.920 of title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, prior to September 13, 1993, unless and until 
     the Commissioner determines that the use of selenium at those 
     levels results in a direct and significant adverse effect on 
     the quality of the environment.
       [In addition to amounts provided, proceeds from the sale of 
     any animals that are surplus to FDA's needs shall be retained 
     by the Food and Drug Administration and credited to the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for 1995.]


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, [$18,150,000] $8,350,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That the 
     Food and Drug Administration may accept donated land in 
     Montgomery and/or Prince George's Counties, Maryland.


                         rental payments (fda)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and 
     Drug Administration which are included in this Act, 
     $46,294,000: Provided, That in the event the Food and Drug 
     Administration should require modification of space needs, a 
     share of the salaries and expenses appropriation may be 
     transferred to this appropriation, or a share of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to the salaries and expenses 
     appropriation, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 per 
     centum of the funds made available for rental payments (FDA) 
     to or from this account.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation

       For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial 
     Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
     as amended, for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred 
     by the Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $57,026,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; [$47,480,000] 
     $50,809,000, including not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That the 
     Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the cost of 
     Commission-sponsored educational events and symposia, and 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited 
     to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $40,420,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the fiscal year 1995 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 706 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 705 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire 
     of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and 
     July 28, 1954, and (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 
     63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
       Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital 
     for data services and National Finance Center operations 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this 
     Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval 
     of the agency administrator.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet 
     emergency conditions, and Integrated Systems Acquisition 
     Project; Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 
     salaries and expenses funds made available to county 
     committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, Middle-Income 
     Country Training Program; higher education graduate 
     fellowships grants under section 1417(b)(6) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)); and capacity building 
     grants to colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of 
     August 30, 1890, including Tuskegee University.
       New obligational authority for the Boll Weevil Program; up 
     to 10 per centum of the Screwworm Program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; funds appropriated for 
     Rental Payments; and higher education minority scholars 
     programs under section 1417(b)(5) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)) shall remain available 
     until expended.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 per 
     centum of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants and contracts with such institutions when such 
     indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all 
     agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment 
     of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts 
     specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision 
     of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or 
     services below that of fiscal year 1994 or prohibit an 
     expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise available, 
     shall reimburse the General Services Administration for 
     payment of space rental and related costs provided to such 
     agency at a percentage rate which is greater than is 
     available in the case of funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 712. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to pay indirect costs on research grants awarded 
     competitively by the Cooperative State Research Service that 
     exceed 14 per centum of total Federal funds provided under 
     each award.
       Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     fiscal year 1995 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1995 for the following 
     accounts: Rural Development Insurance Fund Program Account; 
     Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account; the Rural 
     Telephone Bank Program Account; the Rural Electrification and 
     Telephone Loans Program Account; and the REA Economic 
     Development Loans Program Account.
       Sec. 715. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a Market Promotion Program pursuant 
     to section 203 (7 U.S.C. 5623) of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978, with respect to tobacco or if the aggregate amount 
     of funds and/or commodities under such program exceeds 
     [$90,000,000] zero dollars.
       Sec. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of 
     100,000 acres in the fiscal year 1995 Wetlands Reserve 
     Program, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll additional 
     acres in the Conservation Reserve Program authorized by 16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845.
       Sec. 718. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       [Sec. 719. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       [(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       [(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       [(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       [(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       [Sec. 720. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and 
     Cooperative Agreement Act, marketing services of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service may use cooperative agreements 
     to reflect a relationship between Agricultural Marketing 
     Service and a State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural 
     marketing programs.]
       Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out an export enhancement program 
     (estimated to be $1,000,000,000 in the President's fiscal 
     year 1995 Budget Request (H. Doc. 103-179)) if the aggregate 
     amount of funds and/or commodities under such program exceeds 
     $850,000,000.
       [Sec. 722. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a sunflower and cottonseed oil export 
     program authorized by section 1541 of Public Law 101-624 if 
     the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities under such 
     program exceeds $27,000,000.]
       Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person 
     to support the price of honey under section 207 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $0 in the 1994 crop 
     year.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
     for a total amount of payments and/or total amount of loan 
     forfeitures to a person to support the price of honey under 
     section 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) 
     and section 405A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of 
     zero dollars in the 1994 crop year.
       Sec. 724. None of the funds in this Act may be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to warrant to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury a payment out of the Treasury of the United States 
     for purposes specified in the tenth and eleventh paragraphs 
     under the heading ``Emergency Appropriations'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1907 (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.): Provided, That 
     $2,850,000 is hereby appropriated for higher education 
     challenge grants under section 1417(b)(1) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), including 
     administrative expenses.
       [Sec. 725. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Food Stamp Program may be used in violation of 7 U.S.C. 
     sec. 2015(f) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       [Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Conservation Reserve Program may be used in violation of 
     7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Wetlands Reserve Program may be used in violation of 7 
     CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       [Sec. 728. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Agricultural Water Quality Protection Program may be used 
     in violation of 7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal 
     law or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Integrated Farm Management Program Option may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 730. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Labor Housing Grants (section 516) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 731. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Loans (section 502) may be used in violation of 
     7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 732. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Housing Loans (section 515) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 733. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Assistance Payments (section 521) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 734. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants may be 
     used in violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable 
     Federal law or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 735. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Site Loans (sections 523 and 524) may be used 
     in violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal 
     law or regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 736. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants may be used in violation 
     of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       [Sec. 737. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Housing Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation of 
     the United States.
       [Sec. 738. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Ownership Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1943.12(a)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       [Sec. 739. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Emergency Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1945.162(b)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       [Sec. 740. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Operating Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1941.12(a)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.]
       Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 715 of this Act, none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used to pay the salaries of personnel who carry 
     out a Market Promotion Program pursuant to section 203 (7 
     U.S.C. 5623) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, with 
     respect to tobacco or if the aggregate amount of funds and/or 
     commodities under such program exceeds $90,000,000: Provided, 
     That the appropriated levels provided in this Act for the 
     following accounts shall be reduced by 1.5 percent:
       Office of the Secretary.
       Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
       Chief Financial Officer.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
       Advisory Committees (USDA).
       Departmental Administration.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
     Relations.
       Office of Communications.
       Office of the Inspector General.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economics.
       Economic Research Service.
       National Agricultural Statistics Service.
       World Agricultural Outlook Board.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and 
     Education.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and 
     Inspection Services.
       Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses.
       Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 
     Salaries and Expenses.
       Soil Conservation Service, Conservation Operations.
       Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account, 
     Administrative Expenses.
       Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account, 
     Administrative Expenses.
       Rural Development Insurance Fund Program Account, 
     Administrative Expenses.
       Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, Administrative 
     Expenses.
       Farmers Home Administration, Salaries and Expenses.
       Rural Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account, 
     Administrative Expenses.
       Rural Telephone Bank Program Account, Administrative 
     Expenses.
       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer 
     Services.
       Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 
1995 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development, and 
related agencies.
  The bill totals $67.98 billion in new obligational authority. Under 
CBO scoring, the bill includes $13.29 billion in discretionary 
authority and $54.61 billion in mandatory spending.
  I might stop to digress, and say that we had over 1,100 requests from 
Members of the Senate for various things in their States.
  I would just like to say at this point that out of the almost $68 
billion in new obligational authority, we only had jurisdiction in the 
committee of a little over $13 billion. The rest of it is mandatory 
spending over which we have very little control.
  Included in this mandatory total is $28.8 billion for food stamps, an 
increase of $694.1 million; $15.5 billion for the Commodity Credit 
Corporation reimbursement of losses; $7.5 billion for child nutrition 
programs; and $1.8 billion for the Conservation Reserve Program and the 
Wetlands Reserve Program. Mandatory programs account for 80.4 percent 
of our total bill.
  In terms of the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for discretionary 
funds, we have just met that allocation. Any amendments--let me 
emphasize to all of my colleagues who are listening or watching--any 
amendment that adds money to this bill or increases its cost in any way 
must be offset by an equal amount or they will be subject to a budget 
point of order.
  On the issue of nutrition programs, the bill contains a total of 
$40.2 billion for food programs including WIC, food stamps, child 
nutrition, food donations, and emergency feeding. This amount 
represents 59.2 percent of the total bill. These programs by and large 
benefit the urban areas of the country because that is where the people 
are. It really is somewhat of a misnomer to call this a bill for rural 
America when you consider how much of it is for urban areas.
  To highlight some of the programs in the bill, let me first mention 
the Women, Infants, and Children Program which is our top priority. It 
has received by far the largest increase of any program in the bill. 
For WIC, which is the acronym for Women, Infants, and Children, we are 
providing $3.470 billion, which is a $260 million increase over last 
year, or an increase of 8.1 percent.
  Other increases in the 1993 level of funding are few. In addition to 
the WIC and food stamp programs, we have provided an increase of $26.5 
million for the Wetlands Reserve Program in order to enroll 100,000 
acres as opposed to the 75,000 acres being enrolled this year, 1994. 
Rental assistance is increased by $76.3 million in order to meet the 
estimated renewals and servicing of contracts. An increase of $17.2 
million is provided for the Food Safety and Inspection Service in order 
to provide better meat and poultry inspection and to fund the 
Secretary's Pathogen Reduction Program.
  Finally, Madam President, the bill includes an increase of $142.7 
million in water and sewer loans and $12.5 million in water and sewer 
grants.
  Perhaps more significant are the decreases contained in the bill. 
Rural housing loans are cut by $603.5 million. Now, that is a big cut 
in a program that I believe in strongly. Farm loans are cut by $433.6 
million, and conservation programs are cut by $323.4 million. The 
conservation reductions include the elimination of a lot of programs--
the Water Bank Program, the Forestry Incentives Program, the Colorado 
River Salinity Control Program, and the Emergency Conservation Program. 
No new signups will be allowed under the Conservation Reserve Program 
and as mentioned earlier the Wetlands Reserve Program is limited to 
100,000 acres.

  The Public Law 480 program is reduced by $239.8 million. The Crop 
Insurance Program is cut by $217 million.
  We have basically thrown that program into the lap of the authorizing 
committee, and I do not know what is going to happen to it after that. 
Food donation programs are reduced by $110.3 million including the 
elimination of commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, commonly referred to as TEFAP, and over the next 48 hours, 
Madam President, you will hear TEFAP mentioned a lot as well as other 
programs such as MPP. And REA loans are cut by $66.3 million.
  In addition, virtually all the salaries and expense accounts are 
reduced from the 1994 level. Of particular note is the cut of $14.5 
million for the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service, the 
agency that administers all the Federal farm programs, including 
disaster assistance, and the cut of $17 million to the Farmers Home 
Administration, the agency that administers all the farm, rural 
housing, and rural development loan and grant programs.
  But that is not all, Madam President. The subcommittee over my 
objection, I admit, decided to fund the Market Promotion Program at $90 
million. Now, that is the MPP program I mentioned previously. I wanted 
to zap that program to zero, but I was overruled in the subcommittee 
and there is now $90 million for the program. In order to do that, one 
of the members who offered the amendment to restore that program found 
an offset by taking 1.5 percent from 27 different accounts in the bill 
including ASCS and the Farmers Home Administration. That is a 1.5-
percent cut in their salaries and expenses. So the cuts that we already 
made in those accounts are reduced still further.
  We had cut those programs by $17 million, and we are taking another 
1.5 percent in order to fund this Market Promotion Program.
  That is a bad way to legislate, in my opinion. Sometimes necessity 
dictates that we cut across the board because you cannot get people to 
agree on a specific way of cutting. You can always hide behind an 
across-the-board cut. I have done it myself. I am not posturing. I am 
just saying generally it is not a very good way to legislate.
  Madam President, I am afraid people do not realize the effect that 
this additional cut is going to have on the ability of the Farmers Home 
Administration, ASCS, and a whole host of others to carry out the 
programs because we had already cut them very dramatically.
  Like the House bill, this bill caps the Export Enhancement Program at 
$850 million. That is the program where we subsidize exports in order 
to compete with other nations. We set it at $850 million, and that is a 
flat $150 million from the President's request of $1 billion.
  Finally, Madam President, I wish to make special mention of what we 
did for the Food and Drug Administration. We provided a $54.8 million 
increase over the 1994 level, and that is exactly what the President 
requested. And the President proposed to allow the Food and Drug 
Administration to collect $252 million in new user fees. User fees are 
for those pharmaceutical companies that apply to the FDA for a license 
to sell new pharmaceuticals, and so on. The bill recommends that FDA 
generate not the $252 million the President said they could generate; 
we only recommended $150.8 million. The recommendation was particularly 
troublesome for the subcommittee and for me because I do question the 
Food and Drug Administration's ability to collect such an amount in 
time to be used in the 1995 budget. It is also unknown how the fees are 
going to be levied, how much they will be, and whom they will affect.
  The administration's request has no specific plan that I know of for 
implementing these fees. However, the fiscal constraints with which we 
are faced forced us to comply in part with the budget request.
  Madam President, I commend the bill to my colleagues and I ask for 
their support.
  Let me just say one additional thing. Senator Cochran and I will join 
in offering an amendment at the right time to fund such sums as are 
necessary to take care of the tremendous disaster that Alabama, 
Georgia, and Florida have just experienced in not quite unprecedented 
flooding but terrible flooding which has cost the farmers of that area 
a lot of lost crops and the communities a lot of loss of facilities.
  Madam President, I would like to also say I am indebted to my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Cochran, for his cooperation and 
tremendous help in crafting a bill under very difficult circumstances. 
We are roughly $650 million below a freeze. I said in the 
Appropriations Committee the other day, Senators--again, I am not 
posturing because I have probably done it, too--we have a tendency to 
come on the floor and grandstand by saying, ``I think we ought to free 
spending.'' I would be tickled to death to vote for freezes in the 
future, because we are $650 million below a freeze. I can tell you--and 
I am not saying this on my behalf; I am saying it on behalf of 
virtually every subcommittee chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittees--they have all had a very difficult time coming in within 
the allotment given to them under the Budget Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas in presenting for the Senate's consideration 
today, H.R. 4554, the fiscal year 1995 Agriculture, rural development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill.
  This bill provides fiscal year 1995 funding for all programs and 
activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture--with the exception of 
the U.S. Forest Service--all programs of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Future Trading Commission, and expenses 
and payments of the farm credit system.
  As reported, this bill recommends total appropriations of $67.978 
billion for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995. This is roughly 
$4.1 billion below the total fiscal year 1994 enacted level, and $450 
million below the total fiscal year 1995 budget request of the 
President.

  I point out that $40.3 billion, or 59.2 percent, of the total 
recommended by this bill will go to funding the Nation's domestic food 
assistance programs. These programs include Food Stamps, the National 
School Lunch, and Elderly Feeding Programs, and the Supplemental 
Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children, referred to as WIC.
  Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary 
spending of $13.292 billion in budget authority and $13.850 billion in 
outlays for fiscal year 1995. These amounts are $525 million below the 
subcommittee's 602(b) discretionary budget authority allocation and 
consistent with its discretionary outlay allocation.
  As my colleagues will note, we have underspent the subcommittee's 
budget authority allocation for discretionary spending by over $500 
million to keep the bill within its total discretionary spending outlay 
allocation. This outlay allocation is $95 million lower than that 
received by our counterpart House Subcommittee, close to $400 million 
below the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, and $500 million less than 
the President's request level including new FDA user fee savings.
  The bill we submit meets that outlay target, but it has not been 
easy. Reduced funding is recommended for a number of programs important 
to agriculture and to rural America. Few funding increases are 
recommended. Most programs are funded at or below the fiscal year 1994 
level.
  Only two major funding increases above current levels are recommended 
in this bill. One is an increase of $260 million, the same as contained 
in the House bill, to maintain our commitment to achieve full funding 
of the WIC Program. Also, there is an increase of $76 million for rural 
housing rental assistance to meet the estimated costs of contract 
renewal and servicing requirements.
  Other more modest increases include an additional $17.2 million to 
continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to 
assure the safety of our Nation's food supply; an additional $26 
million to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program; and $33 million as an increase to provide more water and sewer 
loan and grant assistance to rural communities.
  Savings of $234 million are recommended in appropriations for the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program. This is the same as the House bill 
level and assumes adoption of crop insurance reform, as proposed by the 
President. With the exception of increased funding for the Wetlands 
Reserve Program, the bill reduces total funding for agriculture 
conservation programs managed by the Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service by a total of 
approximately $611 million. This includes a 34-percent reduction in 
funding level for watershed and flood prevention operations; a 51-
percent reduction in funding for the agricultural conservation program; 
and elimination of funding for the Water Bank and Forestry Incentives 
Programs.
  The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program has fostered a 
beneficial partnership between the Federal and State and local 
governments to prevent erosion damage and to properly protect and 
conserve watersheds and flood-prone areas. The President proposed to 
terminate this program beginning in fiscal year 1995. This bill 
recommends $75 million, $146 million below the fiscal year 1994 
appropriations level, for the program. While I would have preferred to 
maintain the program at its current funding level, this bill provides 
at least minimal funding to continue work on ongoing projects in fiscal 
year 1995.
  I regret that the bill contains no funding at all for the Forestry 
Incentives Program. The Forestry Incentives Program, which aims to 
increase the Nation's supply of timber products from private, 
nonindustrial forest lands, has been a very beneficial program. The 
program encourages landowners to plant trees on suitable open lands or 
cut-over areas and to perform timber stand improvement work for 
production of timber and other related forest resources. Private 
nonindustrial landowners control the majority of forest lands in the 
Nation, but these lands are not fully utilized. Many landowners do not 
have the funds to make long-term investments in developing and 
improving forest areas. The Forestry Incentives Program is designed to 
share this expense with private, eligible landowners. It is my hope 
that the Senate will be able to recede in conference to the House bill 
position, which recommends funding be continued for this program.

  The bill also recommends a total reduction of $603 million below last 
year's level for rural housing loan authorizations; a reduction of $301 
million in farm operating and farm ownership loan authorizations; and a 
reduction of $554 million in Rural Electrification Administration loan 
program authorizations.
  Public Law 480 loan authorizations are reduced $240 million below 
fiscal year 1994 levels. Other savings come from a $10 million 
reduction in funding for the Market Promotion Program; elimination of 
funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program commodity purchases; 
and a limitation of $850 million on Export Enhancement Program 
subsidies.
  The bill also provides the $52.8 million increase in overall funding 
requested by the President for salaries and expenses of the Food and 
Drug Administration. But this includes $150.8 million of the $252 
million in new user fee collections assumed in the President's budget.
  The President's budget proposes $24 million in collections from the 
new user fee on medical devices and $228 million in collections from 
new user fees on FDA-regulated activities.
  Such fees constitute a major policy change, and it is my view that 
they require separate authorization. Collections from new FDA user fees 
should not be assumed in an appropriations bill, as the President 
proposes.
  The administration included new user fee collections in its FDA 
request last year. It did not submit a legislative proposal to 
establish these new user fees, despite clear indications from this 
committee and the authorizing committee of jurisdiction that it should 
do so. Again, this year, no legislative proposal has been submitted by 
the administration to back up its budget proposal. In fact, 
administration officials are reticent in answering questions or 
explaining the President's new FDA policy on user fees. They cannot 
tell the Congress how FDA will levy the fees assumed in the budget, 
what the fees will be, or who they will affect.
  This subcommittee faces a declining share of resources available for 
discretionary spending programs that are very important to agriculture, 
to rural America, and to those who need assistance in dealing with 
their own nutrition needs.
  This subcommittee cannot continue to save the FDA from these new user 
fees by making offsetting cuts in those other programs and activities 
under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
  Only $13 billion of the $68 billion recommended in this bill is 
discretionary spending, subject to the annual control of the committee. 
Funding for almost all agriculture and rural development programs in 
this bill has been reduced below current levels to meet the 
subcommittee's lower discretionary spending allocation. Further cuts 
have been necessary to offset the few increases provided, including the 
additional $260 million for WIC. Furthermore, the subcommittee was able 
to reduce funding to avoid $100 million of the $252 million in new user 
fee collections used by the administration to reduce FDA's 
appropriations request.
  These have all been very difficult decisions, Madam President. I do 
not agree with all of them. But, on balance, I believe that the bill we 
submit to the Senate today represents a reasonable compromise among the 
many programs competing for the limited resources available to this 
subcommittee.
  I sincerely commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Bumpers, for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He has 
made an effort to accommodate the interests of all Senators in this 
bill, including those on this side of the aisle, and under very 
difficult circumstances. It is not easy to be responsive or as generous 
as one would want to be to the needs of the agencies and the interests 
which fall under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, given the 
allocation of funds that are available. But I believe given the 
resource constraints, this is a good bill on whole, and I ask my 
colleagues to give it their very favorable consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I thank my distinguished ranking member 
and colleague, Senator Cochran, for his very kind and overly generous 
remarks. We have indeed had an excellent working relationship. I 
daresay this: It could not be better.
  His suggestions have been very helpful and thoughtful, and together 
we have tried to craft a bill under unbelievably difficult 
circumstances, as pointed out in my early comments.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4554, the Agriculture appropriations bill and has found that the 
bill is under its 602(b) budget authority allocation by $525 million 
and under its 602(b) outlay allocation by $87,000.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Bumpers, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee, 
Senator Cochran on all of their hard work.
  Madam President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee 
which shows the official scoring of the Agriculture appropriations bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at the 
appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4554--FISCAL YEAR 1995     
            AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL            
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                   Bill summary                     authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill..........................     13,292      9,653
    Outlays from prior years appropriations.......  .........      4,239
    Permanent/advance appropriations..............          0          0
    Supplementals.................................          0        -42
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending............     13,292     13,850
                                                   =====================
Mandatory totals..................................     44,721     36,385
                                                   =====================
    Bill total....................................     58,013     50,235
    Senate 602(b) allocation......................     58,538     50,235
                                                   ---------------------
      Difference..................................       -525       -(*)
                                                   =====================
Discretionary totals above (+) or below (-):                            
    President's request...........................       -562       -267
    House-passed bill.............................        -38        -94
    Senate-reported bill..........................  .........  .........
    Senate-passed bill............................  .........  .........
      Defense.....................................          0          0
      International affairs.......................      1,246      1,348
      Domestic discretionary......................     12,046     12,502
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Amendments

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments, with the exception of those I will list, be 
agreed to en bloc, and that the bill as thus amended, be regarded for 
the purpose of amendment as original text, provided that no point of 
order shall be waived by reason of the agreement to this request.
  The exceptions are:
  On page 10, line 24; on page 12, lines 14 through 17; on page 16, 
line 3; on page 16, lines 4 through 7; on page 32, lines 20 through 
page 33, line 16; on page 71, lines 21 through 25; on page 86, line 9 
through page 88 line 12; and finally on page 80, line 10 through page 
81, line 18.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the agreement has been cleared on this 
side of the aisle. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to en bloc, except the 
following:
  On page 10, line 24; on page 12, lines 14 through 17; on page 16, 
line 3; on page 16, lines 4 through 7; on page 32, lines 20 through 
page 33, line 16; on page 71, lines 21 through 25; on page 86, line 9 
through page 88 line 12; and finally on page 80, line 10 through page 
81, line 18.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, let me say also for the benefit of my 
colleagues, this is a Monday. There are possibly Senators out of town, 
which is their prerogative, because we are not going to have any 
rollcall votes today. But I am hoping that some of our colleagues will 
not use this as a reason for procrastinating in offering their 
amendments.
  I am not very crazy about stacking votes, but we need to finish this 
bill sometime tomorrow, the earlier the better. There is not any way to 
do that unless the amendments to be proposed by Senators are offered so 
they can be debated, rollcall votes called for, or whatever.
  Second, I want to say that there are eight exceptions to committee 
amendments, most of those by the same Senator. But that is immaterial 
to me. I do not mind Senators asking me to except amendments from the 
committee amendments to be  considered. They are going to be the 
pending business, and my point is simply this: If at some reasonable 
time the Senators who have objected to these amendments are not here to 
state their objections or offer striking amendments or whatever other 
kind of amendment they want to make, at some point I am going to start 
moving to adopt those amendments so we can finish this bill tomorrow 
night.

  I do not mean to be harsh about it. It is just that Senator Cochran 
and I have worked long and hard to craft this bill. It is time now for 
the Senate to debate it and work its will. I do not have any interest 
in sitting here for hours on end waiting and hoping that some Senator 
will show up with an amendment, because Senator Cochran and I are just 
like everybody else, we have a plateful, and we need to attend to our 
business.
  I compliment the Senator from Nevada, who has a very important 
amendment and is here on the floor ready to offer it. I might also say 
I am going to accept that amendment. I am just saying other Senators 
ought to be prepared to come over and follow the Senator from Nevada 
when we complete debate on that amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the 
pending amendments and proceed to the amendment on page 86, line 9, 
through page 88, line 12.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 86, Line 9, through Page 88, Line 
                                   12

  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, for my colleagues who are listening, this is a bit 
of an unusual procedure because I will not be offering an amendment, 
per se. My comments today deal with an objection to a committee 
amendment. So I am going to be speaking in opposition to a committee 
amendment that deals with a program that is familiar to, I know, the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who serves as one of the floor 
managers today. I am talking about the Market Promotion Program.
  Procedurally, I am going to be objecting to that part of the 
committee amendment that, in effect, continues funding the Market 
Promotion Program. My comments are addressed in opposition to the 
Market Promotion Program, with the hope that my colleagues may agree 
with me that this is a program which ought to be discontinued. In the 
current fiscal year it is funded at a level of $99.5 million.
  Madam President, let me give a little bit of the background because 
not everybody has had a chance to focus on this program.
  The Market Promotion Program was created in 1986 to encourage 
development, maintenance, and expansion of exports of the U.S. 
agricultural products. It is a successor to an earlier program referred 
to as the Targeted Export Assistance Program known as TEA. TEA was 
created in 1985 to counter ostensibly the adverse effect of subsidies, 
import quotas, and other unfair trade practices of foreign competitors 
as it deals with agricultural exports.
  Since 1986, more than $1.35 billion has been spent for TEA and MPP.
  The Market Promotion Program, Madam President, is operated through 
about 64 organizations that either run market promotion programs 
themselves or pass the funds along to companies to spend on their own 
market promotion efforts. For example, in fiscal year 1994 about 43 
percent of all program activities involved generic promotions, that is 
agricultural programs by commodity whether we are talking about cotton 
or raisins or whatever the agricultural product is. Fifty-seven percent 
involved brand-name promotions, that is companies whose brand name is 
used to promote a particular product, the product which includes some 
agricultural product grown in the United States.
  The General Accounting Office has pointed out that the entire Federal 
Government spends about $2.7 billion annually on export promotion. 
While agricultural products represent approximately 10 percent of 
entire U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends about $2 
billion, or 75 percent, of the total. The Department of Commerce, for 
example, spends about $195 million annually on trade promotion.
  In 1992, the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is an agency within 
the Department of Agriculture, asked organizations to provide 
information on domestic and foreign ownership of commercial firms that 
have received money under MPP, the Market Promotion Program. Of the MPP 
funds $92 million went to foreign-based firms for fiscal years 1986 
through 1993. This amount represents nearly 20 percent of the total 
funds allocated for brand-name promotions during the 8-year period 
covered; that is, from 1986 to 1993. And while the goal of MPP is 
laudable--to benefit U.S. farmers--the program can also benefit other 
enterprises.
  By funding foreign firms, the General Accounting Office believes that 
MPP can make it more difficult for U.S. firms to compete and attain a 
foothold in foreign markets. The funding of foreign companies may 
produce short-term gains in the exporting of U.S. agricultural 
commodities, but these gains may ultimately come at the expense of U.S. 
firms who are trying to compete in those markets and whose access to 
those markets is made more difficult as a result of the MPP program.
  Now, let me just describe, in very broad terms, what we are talking 
about. We are talking about a program that historically received about 
$200 million annually.
  MPP funds go to advertising and promotion. And so, as the General 
Accounting Office has reviewed this program over the years--and I must 
say, Madam President, a very critical evaluation it is. First, a 
question arises. Why does this money go to some of the biggest 
companies in America: Do they really need taxpayer dollars? And that is 
the issue here, Madam President. All of this is taxpayer dollars. Your 
taxpayer dollars, Madam President, from your State of Illinois, and 
mine from Nevada, and each of us who serve as Members of this 
distinguished body, go to funding this program,
  Authorized in the past at $200 million, in the current fiscal 
year, the funding has been reduced to $99.5 million and the amendment 
to which I object would put funding for fiscal year 1995 at $90 
million. So we are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money. 
We are talking about $90 million in this budget.

  Let me just indicate here, if I may, Madam President, where some of 
this money has gone.
  This is a taxpayer subsidy. Some have referred to it as a corporate 
entitlement program.
  But, as you can see, we are talking about companies the size of 
McDonald's, the hamburger people. I happen to love hamburgers, so there 
is no antagonism, no judgment made about their company in terms of the 
quality of its product or what it is trying to market. But it has 
received, over the 8-year period in question, from 1986 to 1993, the 
sum of $1.42 million in taxpayers dollars.
  McDonald's is no small company. Its net profits are approximately 
$1.082 billion and its advertising budget is $743 million a year. So we 
are talking about a company that has a huge advertising and promotion 
budget. No quarrel, no objection with that. That is a private-sector 
determination made by the management of McDonald's and there is no 
suggestion here to imply any criticism.
  The criticism is, Does McDonald's, for example, deserve, and is it 
entitled to receive $1.42 million of taxpayers dollars to supplement 
their advertising budget?
  The same could be said with respect to Ralston-Purina, which receives 
$1.17 million; Borden, $344,000; ConAgra, $638,000; Brown-Forman, $2.41 
million. These are just some of the biggest companies in America, and 
their advertising budgets are $743 million, is being augmented by the 
$393 million, $135 million, $200 million, and $75 million, 
respectively. A lot of money.
  The taxpayer dollars are what I object to. The purpose of my 
objecting to the amendment is to zero out this program. Some of my 
colleagues may recall that I took the floor unsuccessfully last year to 
make the same argument.
  But the General Accounting Office has looked at this, as I said, with 
a very disdainful eye, and here are some of the observations that it 
makes with respect to the program.
  First, under a category of what they call additionality, there is 
still no proof that the MPP funds--those are the taxpayer subsidies--
are not simply replacing funds that would have already been spent 
anyway on advertising. USDA does not have any good data on the 
additionality. Commercial firms still have the opportunity to 
substitute MPP funds for promotional activities they would otherwise 
have undertaken on their own.
  What we simply mean by that is, there is no indication that this 
dollar figure here, an advertising budget of $743 million, is being 
augmented by the $1.42 million in MPP funds? Are they simply 
substituting dollars that they would already have spent?
  And the GAO, which has looked at this with a very critical eye, is 
saying there is no way for us to ascertain that indeed these taxpayer 
subsidies are in fact supplementing the advertising budgets as opposed 
to just substituting dollars that these major companies and various 
trade organizations would otherwise have spent.
  As an example, they cite a firm with 14 years of export experience, 
requesting MPP funds for a total of 31 markets. In 8 of the markets, 
the firm had at least 10 years of promotional experience with their 
brand names prior to the participation in the MPP program. That is, 
this particular firm, which had extensive export experience, had been 
in the very market, had been extensively promoting it through its 
advertising budget before they applied for the program. And so there is 
no indication that, but for this MPP funding, they would not continue 
to be funding their advertising at the same level, if not more, even if 
this program did not exist.

  Another example, which came by way of testimony offered in one of the 
committees in the other body a year or 2 ago, was the testimony of 
Ursula Hotchner. She is an official with Newman's Own; that is Paul 
Newman's food company. She testified that the company was asked why 
they did apply for TEA funding. She said, ``I do not know.'' She said, 
``Someone from the Export Council called up one day from out of the 
blue asked why don't we take the money? They said all we had to do was 
to send in our advertising bills and they would reimburse us.'' Her 
response was, ``Well, I figured, why not?''
  Again, no indication, no baseline, no data indicating that, in this 
instance, this company is not just simply saying, ``Look, if there are 
Federal dollars available to help us in our advertising, we will take 
the money and maybe we can back out that money to another area or take 
it to the bottom line.'' So that there is no data base, no hard data 
that the GAO can come up with to indicate that in point of fact the 
taxpayer subsidies are, in fact, supplementing the advertising budgets.
  Another critical observation made by GAO is what it refers to as 
graduation. That is, once you are in the program, do you ever graduate, 
or are you there for life? Is it one of those things where you are in 
there in perpetuity, as the lawyers would say?
  Now, there are new MPP regulations that require assistance to cease 
after 5 years. However, the 5-year clock starts running in 1994. This 
means that some companies will have been in the program for 13 years at 
the end of 1999. Thirteen years, Madam President, is certainly enough 
time to overcome any barriers in markets. Already 136 firms have 
participated in the program for 6 to 8 years, and have received the 
bulk funds indicated under their brand names.
  This should not be a corporate entitlement program. Once the barrier 
to market a U.S. product in a foreign nation has been bridged, there is 
no decision to cease funding that particular company. Since 1986, the 
California Raisin Advisory Board has spent $47.4 million nationwide for 
market development. Of that, $9.4 million was spent specifically for 
development in the Japanese market. Currently, the California raisin 
exporters have about 80 percent of raisin imports in Japan. So, should 
the taxpayers be providing additional money to the California Raisin 
Advisory Board to promote the export of raisins to Japan? I do not 
think anybody here would have a quarrel with the concept that 
California agricultural products ought to be exported worldwide. I 
think all of us can agree with that. But should the taxpayers be paying 
additional money when they already have 80 percent of the market? 
Should that not be a private sector activity, and to give the taxpayers 
a break? Why should the rest of us, as taxpayers, be paying for 
additional advertising when, indeed, that market seems to be very 
effectively penetrated?
  Another issue is evaluation. By that, we mean how do you draw a 
relationship between what Company A received in taxpayer subsidies the 
amount of exports by that particular company or that trade association 
have increased X number of dollars, or X number of percent? The General 
Accounting Office took a look at that issue. Here is what it has to 
say.
  The GAO concludes that:

       Taxpayers do not have reasonable assurances that the 
     considerable public funds expended on export promotion are 
     being effectively used to emphasize sectors and programs with 
     the highest potential returns. MPP supporters use examples of 
     increased exports. However, even if a brand name promotion 
     effort results in identifiable increases in exports, unless 
     FAS can convincingly demonstrate the promotion effort would 
     not have been undertaken without MPP assistance, those 
     increases in exports cannot be attributed to the program.

  So we do not have a clear understanding that even when the money goes 
to the particular brand name, or the trade association, that indeed we 
are getting a bang for the taxpayer buck.
  GAO further observes that:

       Since 1986, there have been more than 100 participants in 
     the program. Yet the Foreign Agriculture Service has 
     completed only 12 program evaluations. Only 9 of 26 
     participants who have received over $10 million have been 
     evaluated.

  Basically, the question Is, what we are spending accomplishing 
anything? The answer, analytically--other than the anecdotal 
information that is provided--is we do not know. We do not know if the 
money was indeed targeted to the right sector in the foreign market or 
if, indeed, it made a difference that would not have otherwise come 
about, had the subsidy not been provided.
  No. 4 is U.S. content. MPP regulations issued in August 1991 do not 
restrict the program participants to products that have 100-percent 
U.S. content. So some of these products that are being subsidized do 
not contain 100-percent American product. They are supposed to have at 
least 50 percent of U.S. content by weight. But here again in an 
evaluation of the program, the GAO concludes there is no dependable 
data on the percent of U.S. content. FAS relies on statements made in 
the MPP application about U.S. content, and not-for-profit 
organizations rely on unverified statements regarding U.S. content from 
their branded participants. So the answer is we really do not know at 
this point what the U.S. content is, of the product we are subsidizing 
to be exported into the international marketplace.
  The question arises--who should get the funds? Although new 
guidelines say that small firms should have priority, one-third of 
fiscal year 1994 funds continue to go to very large companies. Large 
corporations such as McDonald's, Sun Maid, Welch's, and Pillsbury still 
receive large sums of money. In 1992, the average amount awarded to the 
top 50 firms was $1 million; 8 of those top 50 firms had sales of more 
than $1 billion. Brand name participants receiving more than $1 million 
from 1986-93 include: Welch's, $5,886,000--rounding that off; Blue 
Diamond, $37,521,000--that is another figure I am rounding 
off; Pillsbury, $10,506,000. So the question arises, why do companies 
of this size need taxpayer assistance? I think that is one of the 
critical objections.

  In an article appearing in Washington Monthly, the title of which is, 
``Ad Hawk,'' and written by Doug Turetsky--this article appeared in 
July 1991, the following observation is made. I would like to share 
this.
  Consider Minnesota-based Pillsbury, home of the Popping Fresh Dough 
Boy and the Jolly Green Giant. In addition to $90,000 which is for the 
regional trade association--this is the unbranded portion of it--
Pillsbury received $1.3 million directly from USDA in 1989 to market 
its Green Giant frozen corn in Japan. But as USDA's own magazine, Ag 
Exporter notes:

       Pillsbury has cultivated the Japanese market since the 
     1970's. And while it is true that Japan enacts considerable 
     barriers on corn used for animal food, frozen corn appears 
     nowhere on a comprehensive list of barriers compiled by the 
     Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Federal subsidies 
     were being used to do exactly what the company had done for 
     years and with a minimal apparent difficulty, using its own 
     money.

  It is a question, it seems to me, of priorities. That is my concern, 
as we struggle with very difficult budget decisions. We are constantly 
being told we need to prioritize our dollars. I happen to share that 
view. We need to be mindful and cognizant of the deficit and the debt 
that is accumulating each year, as we continue to spend more money than 
we take in. We need to take a look at our priorities.
  I know we are probably going to hear some comment from my good 
friends, those who support this program, that suggest we are only 
talking about $90 million; in a national budget of $1.5 trillion, this 
is really inconsequential. I think one of the things I enjoy most 
serving in this institution is returning each week, as I do, and 
talking to people in my own home State, as I know most of us do. I like 
to hear what they have to say. Sometimes we deal with such 
macroeconomic problems in America, as we should; we use numbers that 
have more zeros than most of us, nearly, can count. But $90 million is 
real money. When you talk with the average citizen in your State, that 
person will not see $90 million in his or her lifetime, or as far back 
as they can trace their family history.
  My purpose in offering this commentary in opposition to the committee 
amendment is to say, ``Look, this is a priority which this country can 
ill-afford.'' It is not in any way designed to be antagonistic and 
critical of those who labor in the fields of America and who produce 
the agricultural bounty of which America is proud. Their hard work, 
their efficiency in what they have done is absolutely legendary and, as 
Americans--all of us, those of us from nonfarm States and farm States 
alike--benefit enormously. But can we justify spending $90 million of 
taxpayer money for activities that essentially ought to be done in the 
private sector, when there are so many critical needs--and I know the 
distinguished occupant of the chair is as articulate as any Member in 
this institution talking about the unmet needs out there in America. 
How can we give $90 million, some of which goes to McDonald's, Ralston 
Purina, ConAgra, Welch's, Sun Maid, some of the major agricultural 
companies in America? I think the conclusion we arrive at is 
inescapably--no.
  A number of my colleagues are fond of, and agree with, the general 
observations of George Will. I do not always agree with his 
conclusions, but I must say he is an extraordinary writer, and I have 
in recent years agreed with a number of his observations, particularly 
as it deals with some of our agricultural programs.
  A year ago, some of my colleagues will recall we debated the wool and 
mohair subsidy, parenthetically something that directly affects my own 
State. There are sheep ranchers in Nevada who have been participants in 
that program and who will, as a consequence of the actions taken by 
this body, at my request and a number of our colleagues, no longer 
receive subsidies for wool production. That is something that took a 
bite out of our own folks and our own State. It is not that we are just 
trying to pick on somebody else in another State. That had a direct 
impact.
  George Will makes this observation in an article that appeared in the 
Washington Post on July 11, 1993 and I quote from one of the 
paragraphs:

       The MPP funds, both generic and brand-name advertising 
     abroad for American agricultural products, is yet another 
     example of Government solicitous on behalf of the strong. Of 
     the 200 U.S. corporations with the largest advertising 
     budgets, 13 last year got a total of $9 million from the MPP, 
     an average of $700,000 each. But the advertising budgets of 
     those corporations range from $45 million to $538 million, so 
     the taxpayer contributions can hardly be said to represent 
     the difference between competitive success and failure.

  That pretty much sums up my position as to why we ought to eliminate 
this program.
  It will be said by those who support the continuation of the 
programs, ``Aw, those comments may have been appropriate a year ago, 
but we have reformed. We have reformed the program. The criticisms of 
the past no longer bear any merit for today.''
  I want to spend just a couple of minutes, before yielding the floor, 
to talk about those so-called reforms. I think that they are, at best 
and most, charitably assessed as being very modest. Some would say they 
are transparent or illusory.
  For example, the Secretary should not provide assistance for a 
specific brand for more than 5 years. As I have indicated, a number of 
the branded products have been in this program for years and years. So 
that just gives them an additional 5 years. That is the criticism under 
the rubric of graduation. Once you get into the program, do you stay 
for life? That is not, in my judgment, a substantial reform.

  Each participant is required to certify that any Federal funds 
received do not supplant private or third-party participant funds. That 
is an accounting game, I suggest, in which we ought not get involved. 
We have no way of really knowing whether or not those moneys are, 
indeed, substituted out. I suspect in many instances they are, and we 
certainly cannot establish that that does not occur.
  The Secretary should give priority to small-size entities. I might 
just say, if this was part of the reform in the 1993 Reconciliation 
Act, you can take a look at the fiscal year 1994 funding, and it is not 
an auspicious beginning. With respect to the $56.75 million that went 
to the branded program, $23.72 million went to small-size companies. 
That is about 25 percent of the funds for the entire program, and 33 
percent of the funds for the entire program still went to the large 
companies. Whether you went to school under the new math or the old 
math, the large companies are still receiving the largest portion of 
the MPP moneys.
  So my point--and I will yield the floor at this point--is that it is 
a question of priorities. I certainly have no hostility to those who 
represent the great agricultural areas of this country. But we simply 
cannot afford the luxury of this program. When we complain bitterly 
about priorities being neglected in this country, it seems to me this 
is one program that we need to take the stick to and say, With all the 
problems it has in terms of ascertaining its effectiveness and its 
accountability we should not fund some of the major companies in 
America, I think it is time to end the program.
  One last point, if I may. One might be able to argue with some 
measure of justification, Look, this money is going for American 
companies and we ought to be helping American companies. I am a great 
advocate of helping American companies do some of the right things. It 
does not mean we ought to pay for it.
  This is a list that cannot be seen very clearly because there are so 
many names under it. Let me tell you what this chart indicates. This 
indicates the foreign brands--not American companies--the foreign 
brands that are subsidized by the MPP program. In these are the brands 
that are supported. I counted and there are about 240 foreign 
companies. There may be more, but that is what we have been able to 
ascertain.
  What is the justification in using American taxpayer dollars to 
subsidize foreign companies? I think that is a difficult argument to 
sell. I think it is an argument that we ought to have some difficulty 
persuading. I cannot accept that. I do not believe that there is a 
compelling rationale for spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize foreign 
company advertising budgets. I suggest that this is another reason, as 
well, that this program has reached a point in time, whatever its 
historical merit may have been, to say, when dollars are so critically 
short, as I indicated a moment ago, that we simply cannot justify all 
of this expenditure, for all of the things I indicated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Who seeks recognition? Is there 
further debate on the committee amendment? The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, to review the situation so the Senate 
will understand how we have gotten to this point on this issue, the 
administration, in its budget request for the year, asks for $75 
million for the Market Promotion Program. Last year's funding level was 
$100 million. The bill as it was presented in our subcommittee, the 
chairman's mark, zeroed the program out. There were no funds in the 
subcommittee print.

  So at markup, the distinguished Senator from Washington State [Mr. 
Gorton] offered an amendment to include in the bill $90 million in 
funding for this program for next year and proposed as an offset, which 
was a part of the amendment, an across-the-board cut in salaries and 
expenses for most of the agencies funded in the bill. The other body in 
its bill as passed by the House provides $90 million in funding.
  So what we have seen happen is that the House, up to this point, and 
the committee, after acting on the Gorton amendment, have agreed that 
the program should be continued at a funding level of $90 million. This 
amendment, if it is rejected, as proposed by the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada, would take it down to zero again, would zero out funding 
for the program.
  It is my hope that the Senate will study very carefully the issues 
involved before agreeing to that proposal. Last year, for example, 
Senators may remember that there was a similar effort to cut this 
program. As a matter of fact, the proposal was to cut it to zero last 
year, and a vote occurred, and on a recorded vote the Senate voted 70 
to 30 against that amendment.
  So the Senate has already reviewed very carefully--we had a full 
debate last year--whether or not this program ought to be continued. I 
think Senators should keep that history in mind as we proceed to the 
consideration of the proposal now before us.
  Let me further say that despite increases in U.S. agriculture exports 
and moneys derived from those exports, there continue to be serious 
problems in the international marketplace that American agriculture and 
food products have to overcome if we are to continue to enjoy that kind 
of trend in increasing our sales abroad. These unfair trade practices--
barriers to trade, policies in some countries that they must remain 
self-sufficient in this or that area--all work together to make it 
difficult for U.S. exporters, farmers, and others, to compete 
effectively in the international market.
  Back in 1985, it was recognized that the U.S. Government ought to 
become more actively involved in helping to ensure that our exporters 
were treated fairly. When we try to compete with others or when we try 
to sell in another market overseas, it was decided that we should stand 
up for our side and that our Government ought to take an active role. 
So we included in the 1985 farm bill a market development program, 
which was called the Targeted Export Program, that funds would be 
available to be administered by the Department of Agriculture to help 
break down those barriers that were being erected to prevent the sale 
of U.S. commodities such as soybeans, rice, feedgrains, wheat, cotton, 
and bulk commodities. These were some of the products that were being 
supported in this way. Also, manufactured food products were eligible, 
and high-value products were ruled to be eligible as well. But the 
whole point was to target those efforts to specific transgressions, in 
effect, or particular problems that were besetting U.S. exporters. And 
the program worked. We began seeing, in some of these markets, 
increases in sales or new sales made by U.S. exporters when before they 
were not permitted to be sold or they were having difficulties 
competing in those markets.
  At hearings before our subcommittee, for example, the Foreign 
Agriculture Service testified that agriculture exports attributable to 
targeted promotion during that period, from 1986 to 1988, ranged from 
$2 to $7 for every $1 of program funds expended. This experience of the 
Targeted Export Program led the Congress to continue the program when 
the 1990 farm bill was written. The program was changed in name from 
the Targeted Export Program to the Market Promotion Program in the 1990 
farm bill.
  There is a coalition that has been formed to promote U.S. agriculture 
exports, and I received a letter just recently from this group pointing 
out the new GATT agreement does not eliminate support from a government 
to break down trade barriers or to do the things that are provided for 
in this Market Promotion Program. So those who are worried that this 
might be an appropriation which runs counter to the provisions or the 
intent of GATT should not be concerned on that subject.
   To explain this more fully, I am going to ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of this letter to me dated June 24 from the Coalition to Promote 
U.S. Agricultural Exports be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Coalition to Promote


                                    U.S. Agricultural Exports,

                                     Washington, DC, June 24, 1994
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: With the Senate expected to consider 
     the FY 1995 agriculture appropriations bill (HR 4554) as 
     early as the week of June 27, we would like to take this 
     opportunity to urge your continued strong support for 
     maintaining funding for USDA's Market Promotion (MPP) and 
     Foreign Market Development (FMD) Programs.
       Last year, with your leadership and support, the Senate 
     overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to eliminate funding for 
     MPP by a vote of 70 to 30. We anticipate a similar amendment 
     may again be offered this year when the bill reaches the 
     Senate floor. Accordingly, we again urge that you continue to 
     oppose any such amendment.
       While we understand the budget pressures facing Congress, 
     it should be noted the Market Promotion Program (MPP) has 
     already been reduced by 50 percent in recent years. In 
     addition, funding will be reduced by another 50 percent under 
     both the House-passed bill and the bill as reported by the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee. Any further reductions would 
     seriously jeopardize the program's continued success, and 
     threaten the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete 
     effectively in the international marketplace. This is 
     especially true with regard to the new GATT agreement.
       The new GATT agreement, it should be emphasized, does not 
     eliminate export subsidies or trade barriers. It only reduces 
     their overall level. Further, it permits countries to 
     maintain and increase their support for programs which are 
     considered non-trade distorting. These so-called ``green 
     box'' programs include market development and market 
     promotion, export credit, and food assistance, among other 
     programs. As such, both MPP and FMD represent ``green box'' 
     programs and are allowed under GATT.
       Clearly, as history has shown, our foreign competitors--
     especially the European Union--will continue to utilize every 
     available weapon to maintain and expand their share of the 
     world market. This includes the maximum use of export 
     subsidies as allowed, and the shifting of additional 
     resources into such green box programs as highlighted above--
     including market development and promotion. Without a 
     similar commitment on the part of the U.S. government, 
     U.S. agriculture will be at a substantial disadvantage.
       Both the MPP and FMP programs have been critically 
     important in helping U.S. agriculture build, maintain and 
     expand export markets. They have also helped encourage 
     industry self-help efforts, counter unfair foreign trade 
     practices, and promote greater awareness and demand among 
     foreign consumers for U.S. produced agricultural commodities 
     and related products.
       The importance of these programs is also reflected in the 
     fact that exports account for nearly one-third of total U.S. 
     agriculture production and over $40 billion in sales. Such 
     exports also generate billions of dollars in additional 
     economic activity and provide more than one million Americans 
     with needed jobs. Again, without a continued strong 
     commitment in terms of support for such programs as MPP and 
     FMD, many of these jobs will be jeopardized and lost to 
     foreign competition.
       For these reasons, we urge your strong support for USDA's 
     Market Promotion (MPP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) 
     programs and that you continue to oppose any amendments which 
     would further reduce or eliminate their level of funding.
           Sincerely,
         Ag Processing, Inc., Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute; 
           American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest & 
           Paper Association; American Hardwood Export Council; 
           American Meat Institute; American Plywood Association; 
           American Sheep Industry Association; American Soybean 
           Association; Blue Diamond Growers; California Avocado 
           Commission; California Canning Peach Association; 
           California Kiwifruit Commission; California Pistachio 
           Commission; California Prune Board; California Raisin 
           Advisory Board; California Tomato Board; California 
           Walnut Commission; Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.; 
           Chocolate Manufacturers Association; Diamond Walnut 
           Growers; Dole Fresh Fruit Company; Eastern Agricultural 
           and Food Export Council Corp; Farmland Industries; 
           Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus Packers; Florida 
           Department of Citrus; Ginseng Board of Wisconsin; 
           Hansa-Pacific Associates, Inc.; Hop Growers of America; 
           International American Supermarkets Corp.; 
           International Apple Institute; International Dairy 
           Foods Association; Kentucky Distillers Association; 
           Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council; National 
           Dry Bean Council; National Grape Cooperative 
           Association, Inc.; National Association of State 
           Departments of Agriculture; National Cattlemen's 
           Association; National Confectioners Association; 
           National Corn Growers Association; National Council of 
           Farmer Cooperatives; National Cotton Council; National 
           Milk Producers Federation; National Peanut Council of 
           America; National Pork Producers Council; National 
           Potato Council; National Renderers Association; 
           National Sunflower Association; National Wine 
           Coalition; NORPAC Foods, Inc.; Northwest Horticultural 
           Council; Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Produce 
           Marketing Association; Protein Grain Products 
           International; Ralston Purina Company; Rice Millers 
           Association; Sioux Honey Association; Southern Forest 
           Products Association; Sun-Diamond Growers of 
           California; Sunkist Growers, Inc.; Sun Maid Raisin 
           Growers of California; Sunsweet Prune Growers; The 
           Catfish Institute; The Popcorn Institute; Tree Fruit 
           Reserve; Tree Top, Inc., Tri Valley Growers; United Egg 
           Association; United Egg Producers; United Fresh Fruit 
           and Vegetable Assn.; USA Poultry & Egg Export Council; 
           U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council; U.S. 
           Livestock Genetics Export, Inc., U.S. Meat Export 
           Federation, Inc.; U.S. Feed Grains Council; U.S. Meat 
           Export Federation; U.S. Wheat Associates; Vodka 
           Producers of America; Washington Apple Commission; 
           Western Pistachio Association; Western U.S. 
           Agricultural Trade Assn.; Wine Institute.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Under GATT, countries are able and permitted to maintain 
and even increase their support for non-trade-distorting programs. The 
Market Promotion Program falls within the definition of these types of 
programs.
  I wish to assure my colleagues that you can bet our foreign export 
competitors, our friends from around the world who compete with us for 
market share with agriculture commodities, are going to utilize these 
programs--they have in the past; they will continue to do so in the 
future--to try to enlarge their market share. If all of a sudden now we 
abandon this program, which has served our farmers and exporters well, 
U.S. agriculture is going to suffer because of it. So I think there is 
a definite correlation between this program and the success it has had 
and the increases in market share that we have seen coming to U.S. 
exporters in the past 10 years.
  One other statement that was made at our hearing is that the Market 
Promotion Program, according to the Foreign Agriculture Service, has 
played a significant role in expansion of U.S. high-value and value-
added agriculture exports. These exports represent 80 percent of Market 
Promotion Program funding, and they rose to a level of $24 billion in 
fiscal year 1993, up 15 percent from 1991 and up a substantial 77 
percent since 1987.
  Here are some examples. Breakfast cereal exports rose from $45 to 
$253 million from 1987 to 1993. In 1987, U.S. red meat exports were 
$1.4 billion. In 1993, those export values reached an all-time high of 
$3.3 billion. The program assisted the industry in tapping this 
potential in export markets. The exports alone in 1992 were equivalent 
to almost 6 percent of our domestic beef production. The program, in 
cooperation with the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, assisted the 
U.S. salmon industry in increasing canned salmon exports by more than 
230 percent in our top five markets during that same period--1987 to 
1993.
  This is particularly important to note because during this same 
period of time world supplies of salmon nearly doubled--during the 
eighties--as a result of farm-raised salmon production in many parts of 
the world.
  The Foreign Agriculture Service indicates that given the prior level 
of funding of $200 million under the Market Promotion Program, these 
multipliers suggest that U.S. agriculture exports range from $400 
million to $1.4 billion higher than they would have been without this 
program. There is also a corresponding impact, of course, on producer 
incomes in our agriculture sector. Jobs in the processing and 
transportation industry are also affected.
  The Market Promotion Program is valuable in allowing U.S. agriculture 
to compete in the international marketplace in a more effective way, 
and based on a fairer set of rules. It increases our export 
opportunity, contributing to our balance of payments, and helps to 
promote our industrial growth and new job opportunities. I hope 
Senators will consider these very real practical consequences of voting 
down the funds in this bill for this program.
  I agree with my good friend from Nevada that it is a difficult time 
to be balancing competing interests when you do not have enough money 
to go around to all the worthwhile programs and activities. But to 
single this out, and to say that it is not necessary or that we can do 
without it without any harm being done to our economy or to our 
agriculture sector, is not consistent with the evidence that has been 
presented to our committee. At our hearings, the evidence has been 
overwhelming that these are funds that are well spent. They provide a 
return on our investment that is clear and unimpeachable.
  It is my hope that the Senate will very carefully consider these 
factors before reaching a decision to eliminate this important and 
proven program.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I regret that as chairman of this 
subcommittee I have to strenuously oppose one of the amendments that 
the subcommittee adopted--as I stated in my opening remarks--over my 
objection.
  Let me just say as an opening comment, if you believe in corporate 
welfare, vote for the committee amendment. If you believe in handing 
out Federal dollars to some of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in 
America in order to export their brand name, then vote for the 
committee amendment. If you believe, as the General Accounting Office 
pointed out in June 1993, that there is absolutely no correlation 
between the money we are spending on this program and increased 
exports, then vote against the committee amendment.
  I do not enjoy standing here as chairman of this subcommittee and 
telling people who walk in here asking what this is all about, that I 
oppose my own subcommittees amendment. But I do. I have never been very 
keen on this program.
  We have $90 million in this bill for it. The Senator from Mississippi 
correctly listed an increase in exports of beef from 1986 through 1992. 
But the General Accounting Office says they can find no particular 
reason to believe that those exports did not go up because the Japanese 
wanted more beef, and we had it. You will not find anything in this 
report that says the Market Promotion Program had anything to do with 
the increased consumption of beef in Japan.
  I might say at this juncture, Mr. President, that Japan is easily the 
biggest beneficiary of this program. They have been targeted. The 
increase in what we spend on exports to Japan is much higher than the 
percentage increase in exports.

  Mr. President, I am from an agricultural State. People in my State 
use this program, and I do not enjoy opposing something that my 
constituents think is just fine.
  Three of my colleagues in a letter to all other Senators, make the 
following statement:

       According to the Foreign Agricultural Service data, market 
     promotion expenditures for export activities by the world's 
     11 major agricultural exporting nations totals nearly $500 
     million annually. This $500 million total is comprised of 
     both direct Government appropriations and mandatory producer 
     levies, or checkoff programs.

  Mr. President, we are spending $1 billion for export enhancement, and 
another $100 million this year on this program. The program is actually 
redundant. You just think about it. We have a budget of $650 million 
under a freeze and 1,100 requests from other Senators for important 
projects in their States that we cannot fund because we do not have the 
money. We had to squeeze and squeeze to get within our allocation, and 
then fund this program to help McDonald's, Blue Diamond nuts, Sunsweet 
Prunes, Sunmaid Raisins, Dole Pineapple, Gallo Wines, the biggest 
corporations in America. What are we doing?
  The most salient point in the GAO report, Mr. President, is found on 
page 1 of the GAO report, and I quote:

       Concerning the need for continued funding, the United 
     States Department of Agriculture cannot be sure that in the 
     absence of the Market Promotion Program, participants would 
     not have funded these activities by themselves.

  Do you think if Gallo Wines saw a market someplace that they thought 
they could develop, they would say, ``No, we are not going to try to 
develop that market unless the U.S. Government gives us some money?'' 
How silly can you get?
  Do you think McDonald's would have stayed out of Japan and not taught 
the Japanese the joys of McNuggets if the Department of Agriculture had 
not said, ``Come hither quickly; let us give you some money for this 
program''? How silly can you get?
  Well, I will tell you how silly you can get. Again, referring to the 
GAO report, here is--as we say in Arkansas--a ``Jim Dandy.'' The 
General Accounting Office reviewed MPP activities for fiscal year 1989 
of the California Raisin Advisory Board. And here is what they found:

       In September 1989, the California Raisin Advisory Board 
     launched a $3 million Market Promotion Program-funded 
     campaign directed at marketing raisins as a snack in Japan. 
     At that time, consumer package sales of raisins constituted 
     only about 10 percent of Japanese consumption, and the board 
     believed an opportunity existed to increase raisin sales in 
     Japan.

  To continue:

       Many problems existed in the campaign. The lyrics sung by 
     the dancing raisins in the Japanese television commercial 
     were in English.

  How would you like to see dancing raisins in the United States sing 
in Japanese? You would be just like the Japanese were. They did not 
know what the raisins were. Some of them said they are chocolates. Some 
said, no, they are potatoes, because they were shriveled and misshapen. 
And the worst part of it was that it scared the Japanese children to 
death. Do you think I am making that up? Let me go ahead and read it to 
you:

       Because the television commercial was tested at the same 
     time it was aired, it wouldn't be revised, even though many 
     revisions were warranted. Moreover, board officials and 
     others told us that the commercial's dancing raisins figures 
     (misshapen and shriveled) frightened children, who were part 
     of the target audience. Furthermore, according to board 
     officials and an independent evaluation contracted for by the 
     board, the contractor experienced major problems in getting 
     the raisins into retail outlets during the promotional 
     period.

  To show you what a howling success this was, Mr. President, we sold 
raisins to Japan for $1,583 a ton, and it cost the Market Promotion 
Program $3,000 a ton to ship it. We would have been a lot better off to 
have given the Japanese the raisins.
  Any time you have free money floating around just for the asking, you 
are going to run into problems like this time and time again.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for taking 
this issue on once again. The most frustrating thing about this place 
is to come here year after year after year, believing fervently that 
you might just save the Government a little money--whether it is on 
defense or selling raisins to Japan--and get trashed in letters that 
come from these businesses, corporate America, to Members of the Senate 
saying This is the greatest thing since night baseball. It is going to 
cost jobs in our State if you kill the Market Promotion Program.
  Not many Senators will hear this debate--and they might not be 
influenced if they had--but I know how they will vote and why. I know 
there is a considerable crusade going on in America by the people who 
enjoy the benefits of this program. They are writing their Senators, 
and it just becomes impossible to stop a program.
  Let me digress a moment to talk about the deficit. It is a curious 
thing, the deficit. Some people love it because it is a good issue. 
They do not want to do anything about it; they just want to talk about 
it. And so last summer, the Senate did something which I thought was 
one of the most important things that happened since I have been here: 
We raised taxes on 1.2 percent of the wealthiest Americans and cut 
spending.

  I remember when Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 all you could 
hear was ``deficit reduction'' and ``those taxers and spenders.'' And 
at the end of his first term, the deficit had gone from $75 billion--
Jimmy Carter's last deficit--to $210 billion. At the end of Ronald 
Reagan's second term, it was up between $270 and $300 billion. The 
American people were not blaming Ronald Reagan, they were blaming 
Congress, and particularly the Democrats in Congress. I have never 
understood that, but that is a fact. When George Bush left office, the 
deficit actually soared to $310 billion.
  President Clinton says there are only two ways to deal with this 
deficit: one is to cut spending, and the other one is to raise taxes. 
Our very presence here this afternoon shows you how popular it is to 
cut spending. It is almost impossible. My brother calls and says, ``All 
you people in Congress think about is getting in my hip pocket.'' I do 
not think about his hip pocket or anybody else's. I am concerned about 
the deficit, which is an omen of unbelievable magnitude for disaster 
for this country.
  So, last year President Clinton said if you cast this very unpopular 
vote--I know it is unpopular, and I hate to ask you to do it--but if 
you will do it, we will start getting this country's fiscal house in 
order. He said, that moreover, we will avoid an additional $500 billion 
increase in the deficit if you will vote for this. And we will cut the 
deficit every year for the next 3 years for the first time since Harry 
Truman was President. I cannot remember precisely what the figures are, 
but in 1993 the deficit was about $275 billion, and it had been 
projected to be between $320 and $350 billion.
  For 1994, the deficit projection was $250 billion, not the $350 
billion expected after the tax increase and spending cuts. Now, last 
week, OMB said it is not going to be $250 billion; it is going to be 
$220 billion. And next year, instead of $175 billion, it is going to be 
$167 billion.
  You would think the American people would be ecstatic about this 
rapid decline in the national deficit.
  So when OMB comes out and says the deficit this year is going to be 
$30 billion less than we thought and next year $12 to $15 billion less 
than we thought, it appeared on the second page of the Washington Post 
business section and was described in two sentences.
  In short, as long as the deficit is declining, it is not news and 
nobody cares. But I will tell you what the other disastrous thing and 
disheartening thing is. When my colleagues see in the Washington Post 
and the Wall Street Journal that the deficit is going down, they say 
what is $90 million? That does not amount to anything.
  And I can make a few of my constituents happy that they will get a 
little dab of this money and I can answer my mail by saying I supported 
that program you asked me to support.
  The first thing you know you will be seeing the deficit back on the 
front page of the Washington Post because it is going to be going 
higher than the projected figures.
  Mr. President, 20 percent of this money went to foreign-based firms. 
Did you know the Department of Agriculture does not even have a test to 
determine whether the product is made and processed in the United 
States or not? They just take it for granted when someone writes and 
says please send me a couple million dollars so I can promote raisins 
in Japan that we grow in California. The Department does not know if 
they are grown in Mexico or California.
  You know there is one other thing as chairman of the Small Business 
Committee that gripes me about this program. If we want to spend $90 
million to help people export, it ought to be going to people who 
cannot fend for themselves, who do not have the experience and 
expertise on how to export. In short, we ought to target it toward 
small business, help people in this country grow and create more jobs.
  When you give Gallo Wine $2 or $4 million, do you know what you get 
back? Nothing. You have just contributed $2 million to Gallo Wine. That 
is what you have done.
  And the GAO said there is no proof whatever that Gallo would not have 
spent the money anyway.
  Mr. President, I conclude my little soliloquy and just say to my 
colleagues: Do not vote for this program because you are from a farm 
State. Do not vote for this program because you have a letter from a 
constituent saying this program is important to us. Vote against this 
program because it is another $90 million the United States does not 
need to be spending.
  And if you expect someone to say, ``Well, that is just Dale Bumpers 
talking,'' hand them a copy of the GAO report. Read this, and then tell 
me you are going to vote for it anyway.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I know that my colleague from North Dakota 
desires to speak on another issue and I will be very brief.
  Let me just indicate to my colleagues that because of the procedural 
way in which this issue is framed, it was not necessary nor in order to 
offer an amendment so that Senators who were interested in addressing 
this issue might appear as cosponsors.
  I want to acknowledge for the Senate that Senator John Kerry, Senator 
Harry Reid, Senator Hank Brown, and Senator John Chafee, all of whom 
sent letters to their colleagues urging them, as I have, to reject this 
program, would have been cosponsors of an amendment if that procedure 
would have been in order, and I want that to be noted.
  I associate myself with the comments made by my able colleague, the 
senior Senator from Arkansas, and agree with him.
  I do not know how we can support and justify a program like this when 
there are so many other unmet needs in the country--and indeed the 
money goes--I would say to my colleague from Arkansas, there are 240 of 
those foreign companies right here that are depicted in this chart, and 
we have talked extensively about the major businesses in America, one 
of which had a net profit of more than $1 billion who continues to 
receive this corporate welfare.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this.
  I yield the floor, and I thank my friend from North Dakota for his 
indulgence in this and vital observation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the managers of the 
bill.

                          ____________________