[House Report 104-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-172
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

                                _______


  June 30, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1976]
    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 1996.

                                    SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                    
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   1996 recommendation compared 
                                      FY 1995         FY 1996         FY 1996                  with             
                                   appropriation     estimates    recommendation -------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1995        Estimate   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs..     $21,086,242     $16,151,090     $15,911,587     -$5,174,655       -$239,503
Title II--Conservation Programs.       2,645,871       3,003,759       2,725,448         +79,577        -278,311
Title III--Rural Economic and                                                                                   
 Community Development Programs.       2,338,869       2,721,974       2,241,578         -97,291        -480,396
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs      40,249,809      42,090,867      39,271,822        -977,987      -2,819,045
Title V--Foreign Assistance and                                                                                 
 Related Programs...............       1,752,819       1,495,496       1,626,287        -126,532        +130,791
Title VI--Related Agencies and                                                                                  
 FDA............................         990,585         958,807         946,212         -44,373         -12,595
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................      69,064,195      66,421,993      62,722,934      -6,341,261      -3,699,059
Scorekeeping adjustments........      -1,059,949        +491,451        -219,666        +840,283        -711,117
                                 ===============================================================================
      Total.....................      68,004,246      66,913,444      62,503,268      -5,500,978      -4,410,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$13,259,970,000, which is $135,571,000 less than the amount 
available in fiscal year 1995 and $1,632,522,000 less than the 
budget request.
    For mandatory programs, which account for almost 80 percent 
of the bill, the Committee provides $49,243,298,000, a decrease 
of $5,365,407,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 
1995 and $2,777,654,000 below the budget request.

                              Introduction

    To meet the challenge of balancing the budget by the year 
2002, the Committee contributed its fair share to the goal. 
Almost every account in the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Bill is 
reduced below comparable levels in 1995.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture is undergoing a massive 
reorganization which includes closing thousands of county level 
field offices, consolidating field services, and consolidating 
headquarters agencies. The Department is far ahead of most 
other Federal agencies in its attempt to control Federal 
personnel ceilings and costs.
    The Committee established priorities for meat and poultry 
inspection; conservation; and the women, infants, and children 
nutrition program. These activities received the only 
significant increases in the bill. The Consolidated Farm 
Service Agency and rural development agencies salaries and 
expenses accounts received smaller increases to pay for the 
costs of office closings and personnel transfers. These are 
one-time costs which will provide long-term savings from fewer 
field offices and staff.
    The Committee has made difficult and painful choices to 
stay within its budget allocation. Many good research projects, 
conservation programs, rural development programs, and feeding 
programs were eliminated or reduced. While there were hundreds 
of requests for new projects and increased funding from the 
Administration, Members of Congress, and the public, the 
Committee was unable to provide many of the worthwhile 
requests. The outlook for future funding increases is doubtful 
and the Committee was reluctant to start many new programs. The 
Committee tried to maintain only those functions within this 
bill that are essential for the health and safety of consumers 
and the continued prosperity of rural America and our farming 
industry.
                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary
1995 appropriation......................................      $2,801,000
1996 budget estimate....................................   \1\ 2,886,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,227,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +7,426,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      +7,341,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that all Assistant and Under Secretary 
offices be funded in a single account under the Office of the Secretary.

    The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief 
Financial Officer, and members of their immediate staffs, 
directs and coordinates the work of the Department. This 
includes developing policy, maintaining relationships with 
agricultural organizations and others in the development of 
farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the Executive 
Office of the President and Members of Congress on all matters 
pertaining to agricultural policy.
    The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and 
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic 
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
    InfoShare.--This activity is a partnership among the 
agricultural, rural development, and natural resource agencies 
of USDA to improve information resources management, data 
sharing, and communications and thereby providing improved and 
efficient service to customers at the county-based USDA Service 
Centers.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $10,227,000, an increase of $7,426,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and an increase of 
$7,341,000 above the budget request.
    For the InfoShare program the Committee provides 
$7,500,000, an increase of $7,500,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $41,118,000 
below the budget request.
    The budget request for InfoShare totals $48,618,000, of 
which $43,463,000 is for information technology. However, the 
contract for telecommunications, which represents most of the 
fiscal year 1996 InfoShare request, is not scheduled to be let 
until late in the fiscal year. Therefore, the Committee 
provision of $7,500,000 is intended to provide sufficient 
funding for the program for that portion of the fiscal year in 
which the contract will be in effect. The Committee notes that 
additional resources for continued implementation of InfoShare 
remain available through individual agencies participating in 
the program.
    The Committee is convinced that a modern and efficient data 
processing and information sharing program is essential to the 
Department's future. Such a program is vital to the 
reorganization of the Department, itself, as well as to the 
services which must be provided to farmers, ranchers, and 
residents of rural America who use the Department's programs. 
InfoShare was begun as the Department's main effort to 
accomplish these objectives. The Committee is concerned, 
however, that the focus and goals of the InfoShare program have 
changed and that InfoShare is not now able to deliver on its 
original promise. A report issued May 4, 1995, by the Office of 
the Inspector General (OIG) confirms the existence of serious 
problems in the InfoShare program.
    The Committee believes timely and decisive action must be 
taken at the highest level in the Department in order to ensure 
that the objectives of InfoShare are realized with the most 
efficient use of extremely scarce resources.
    The Committee directs that the sum of $7,500,000 for 
InfoShare be appropriated to the Office of the Secretary of 
Agriculture and be under his personal control. In doing so, the 
Committee strongly believes that this critical program, which 
requires the cooperation of several departmental agencies, can 
be most efficiently implemented under the direct authority of 
the Secretary of Agriculture. The Committee notes that the 
Secretary, in his first appearance before a congressional 
committee following his confirmation, assured the Committee 
that he would take a personal interest in the success of the 
InfoShare program.
    The Committee wishes to make clear that it has a high 
regard for the abilities and professionalism of those USDA 
employees who are part of the InfoShare program. However, the 
direct authority of the Secretary is needed to make best use of 
the Department's resources for this project.
    The Committee also notes that the OIG report confirmed that 
the missions of the Information Resources Management (IRM) team 
and the InfoShare office appear to duplicate each other. In 
order to make the best use of scarce resources, the Committee 
expects the Secretary to evaluate the benefits of merging the 
InfoShare and IRM offices in order to achieve maximum 
efficiencies.
    The Committee also expects the Secretary to develop a 
detailed implementation plan for InfoShare providing specific 
target dates for acquisition and installation of equipment and 
services, as well as a specific schedule for those agencies and 
offices to become full participants in InfoShare.
    The Committee also directs that no more than $50,000 be 
used for travel-related expenses of the InfoShare program in 
fiscal year 1996.

                          Executive Operations

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

                     office of the chief economist
1995 appropriation........................\1\...........................
1996 budget estimate....................................      $4,240,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,748,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +3,748,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -492,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The Office of the Chief 
Economist and its functions were transferred to this account from the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economics and from the Economic 
Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and World 
Agricultural Outlook Board.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Economist the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $3,748,000, an increase of 
$3,748,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $492,000 below the budget request.

                       National Appeals Division
1995 appropriation........................\1\...........................
1996 budget estimate....................................     $12,166,000
Provided in the bill....................................      11,846,000
Comparision:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +11,846,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -320,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The National Appeals Division 
functions previously handled in the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service, Consolidated Farm Service Agency, and Natural 
Resources Conservation Service were transferred to this account.

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service.

                          committee provisions

    For the National Appeals Division the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $11,846,000, an increase of $11,846,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$320,000 below the budget request.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis
1995 appropriation......................................      $5,795,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       5,899,000
Provided in the bill....................................       5,899,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +104,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $5,899,000, an increase of 
$104,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
the same as the budget request.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
1995 appropriation........................\1\...........................
1996 budget estimate....................................        $724,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................        -724,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization function was transferred from 
Departmental Administration to Executive Operations

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
oversees direction and implementation of sections 8 and 15 of 
the Small Business Act and oversees procurement to assure 
maximum participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in 
the Department's contracts for goods and services; and directs 
and monitors USDA agencies' compliance in promoting full and 
open competition in the Department's contracting process.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee does not provide a separate appropriation for 
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. The 
Committee has included $707,000 in the Departmental 
Administration appropriation to continue the function of this 
Office. This is the same level of funding for these activities 
that was provided in fiscal year 1995.

                        Chief Financial Officer
1995 appropriation......................................    \1\ $580,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       4,952,000
Provided in the bill....................................       4,133,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +3,553,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -819,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the 
Office of Finance and Management are excluded.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $4,133,000, an increase of 
$3,553,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $819,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has become aware that the Department has 
procured a commercial off-the-shelf financial management 
software package for providing general ledger and accounting 
transactional support for use by customers of its National 
Finance Center (NFC). The Committee is concerned that this 
package was procured without having a complete and thorough 
cost-benefit analysis and that this package may replicate 
already developed and owned financial management systems 
software operated at the NFC. The Committee is also aware that 
USDA is considering the procurement of additional off-the-shelf 
systems or modules for use by the NFC to perform other 
functions such as purchasing, property, travel, billings, and 
collections.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture not to 
use any funds made available from this Act or existing USDA 
working capital funds for the procurement or implementation of 
these additional systems and functions or for the expansion of 
the current commercial Foundation Financial Information System 
contract, beyond the acquisition or development of general 
ledger and accounting support software, until the USDA has 
submitted, with a certification by the Secretary, a detailed 
and complete cost-benefit analysis to the Committees on 
Appropriations on doing any further software systems expansion 
or work commercially or through identical or comparable in-
house methods. This analysis shall include as an option the use 
of a computer aided software engineering tool to improve the 
systems currently in use at the NFC.
    The Committe also directs USDA to actively market all 
available services at the NFC to all other Federal agencies or 
entities through cross servicing or franchising arrangements 
since such cross servicing arrangements in the past have been 
documented to save millions of dollars. Because of the 
magnitude of such savings, USDA is directed to provide all the 
necessary full-time equivalents to the NFC in order to 
accomplish any workload expansions.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
1995 appropriation......................................        $596,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 616,000
Provided in the bill....................................         596,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -20,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$596,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1995 
and a decrease of $20,000 below the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
1995 appropriation......................................    $135,193,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     135,774,000
Provided in the bill....................................     135,774,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +581,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to 
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space 
and for related services.
    The budget estimates for rental payments are based on GSA's 
projection of what it will bill agencies in the budget year. 
The agencies have no influence or control over how GSA sets 
their rates. Rental payments paid by agencies go into a fund to 
be used for other real property management operations, such as 
rental of buildings, repairs and alterations, and acquisition 
of new facilities. The concept behind rental payments is that 
all agencies pay the market value of the space they occupy, so 
that GSA will have the funds available to provide, in an 
efficient and coordinated way, for overall Federal space needs. 
However, in practice this concept means that agencies are 
paying prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize 
the inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space 
and to cover the cost of vacant space in GSA's inventory.
    Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the 
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity 
provides departmental staff and support services to operate, 
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since 
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been 
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 
and improving the Headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1 
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately 
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately 
8,000 employees.
    Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's Headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the 
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to 
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, 
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority 
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and 
effectiveness of the USDA Headquarters in Washington. To 
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of 
space to house the restructured Headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic 
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building.

                          committee provisions

    For agriculture buildings and facilities and rental 
payments to GSA the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$135,774,000, an increase of $581,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Included in this amount is $89,971,000 for rental payments 
to GSA, an increase of $2,014,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee includes language permitting the Secretary of 
Agriculture to transfer a share of this appropriation to or 
from another agency's appropriation. The Committee expects that 
such a transfer will be proposed only when a move into GSA 
rental space becomes necessary during the year or when GSA 
space is vacated in favor of commercial space. This flexibility 
is provided to allow for incremental changes in the amount of 
GSA space and is not intended merely to finance changes in GSA 
billing.
    Also included in the total amount is $20,216,000 for 
building operations and maintenance and $25,587,000 to complete 
the facility in Beltsville.
    The Committee remains extremely concerned about the safety 
of the employees located at the Headquarters Complex. Initial 
funding was provided in fiscal year 1995 to begin the 
Department's Strategic Space Plan. This is a seven-year plan to 
address the serious health and safety hazards which exist in 
the Agriculture South Building as well as streamline and 
improve the operation and delivery of programs at Headquarters 
in Washington. Funding is included to continue this project.

                       advisory committees (usda)
1995 appropriation......................................        $928,000
1996 budget estimate....................................         885,000
Provided in the bill....................................         800,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -128,000
    1996 budget estimate................................         -85,000

    The Department of Agriculture utilizes advisory committees 
to obtain expertise which is not feasible to maintain on the 
permanent staff. Because of the broad range of missions 
performed by the Department and the complexity of skills needed 
in this performance from time to time, it is essential to call 
upon experts in academia and the private sector to supplement 
the expertise of departmental employees in order to assure that 
decisions on major national issues are based upon state-of-the-
art information.

                          committee provisions

    For advisory committees of the Department of Agriculture, 
excluding the Forest Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $800,000, a decrease of $128,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $85,000 
below the budget request. The Committee expects the Secretary 
to fund only those advisory committees that provide the most 
critical information to the Department.

                       Hazardous Waste Management
1995 appropriation......................................     $15,700,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      15,700,000
Provided in the bill....................................      15,700,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For hazardous waste management the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $15,700,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee expects these funds to be used for the highest 
priority projects that pose the greatest risk. The Committee 
also expects that minor work be absorbed within agency budgets.
    Bill language is included which provides that investigative 
and cleanup costs will be paid from this account and operations 
and maintenance costs will be paid from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation.

                      Departmental Administration
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $26,187,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      87,347,000
Provided in the bill....................................      27,986,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +1,799,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -59,361,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the 
Office of Finance and Management are included. Funds appropriated for 
the Safety and Health Management function and Civil Rights Enforcement 
function, which were originally appropriated under other accounts, are 
excluded.

    This appropriation provides funding for the following 
activities:
    Personnel.--This office provides leadership, coordination, 
and monitoring of the personnel management programs in the 
Department and provides liaison with the Office of Personnel 
Management. The office also develops policies for safety and 
occupational health management, provides technical advice and 
monitors compliance.
    Operations.--This office provides staff and support 
services in the management of real and personal property, 
procurement, contracts, supplies, motor vehicles, and internal 
energy conservation. Under an agreement with GSA, it operates 
and provides maintenance, security and services to the 
Washington, D.C. building complex.
    Information Resources Management.--This office designs, 
implements and revises systems, processes, work methods, and 
techniques to improve the management of information resources 
and the operational effectiveness of USDA. This office also 
provides telecommunications and ADP services to USDA agencies 
and staff offices, including the Fort Collins Computer Center 
and the Kansas City Computer Center.
    Civil Rights Enforcement.--This office develops overall 
policies and manages the Department's civil rights and equal 
opportunity programs; plans and coordinates the participation 
of women, minorities, and disabled persons in departmental 
programs; and directs departmental efforts to further the 
participation of minority colleges and universities in USDA 
programs.
    Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.--The 
Administrative Law Judges hold rule-making and adjudicatory 
hearings and issue initial decisions and orders, and the 
Judicial Officer serves as final deciding officer in regulatory 
proceedings.
    Disaster Management and Coordination.--This staff is the 
focal point of contact with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency and all other Federal departments and agencies having 
emergency program responsibilities and provides oversight, 
coordination, and guidance to USDA agencies in their emergency 
planning, training, and activities.
    Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.--This 
activity oversees direction and implementation of sections 8 
and 15 of the Small Business Act and oversees procurement to 
assure maximum participation of small and disadvantaged 
businesses in the Department's contracts for goods and 
services; and directs and monitors USDA agencies' compliance in 
promoting full and open competition in the Department's 
contracting process.
    Modernization of Administration Processes.--This staff 
works with USDA agencies and the Chief Financial Officer to 
reengineer administrative processes in the Department to 
achieve efficiencies and integrate these processes with a 
modern accounting and financial reporting system.

                          committee provisions

    For Departmental Administration the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $27,986,000, an increase of $1,799,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$59,361,000 below the budget request.
    The appropriation for the InfoShare program, which was part 
of the fiscal year 1996 request for this account, has been 
included in the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
1995 appropriation......................................      $1,764,000
1996 budget estimate....................................   \1\ 1,838,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,797,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +2,033,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      +1,959,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this Office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations the Committee provides $3,797,000.
    The Committee has consolidated all congressional affairs 
activities of the Department, excluding the Forest Service, 
into a single account. The Committee is concerned about the 
duplication of effort that occurs when three congressional 
liaison personnel--one from the Secretary's Office, one from 
the Department's Congressional Affairs Office, and one from the 
agency's congressional affairs staff--attend the same meeting. 
The Committee believes this consolidation of staff and funding 
will result in greater efficiency and less overlap of 
congressional liaison activities.

                        Office of Communications
1995 appropriation......................................      $8,198,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       8,890,000
Provided in the bill....................................       8,198,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................        -692,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $8,198,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $692,000 below the 
budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $63,418,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      64,739,000
Provided in the bill....................................      63,639,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +221,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -1,100,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the transfer of 
the Civil Rights Enforcement function to Departmental Administration.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $63,639,000, an increase of 
$221,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a 
decrease of $1,100,000 below the budget request. Included in 
the total is $850,000 to cover costs associated with the 
Availability Pay Act.

                     Office of the General Counsel
1995 appropriation......................................     $25,992,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      27,860,000
Provided in the bill....................................      27,860,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +1,868,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the General Counsel the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $27,860,000, an increase of 
$1,868,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The Committee understands the budget constraints facing all 
agencies within the Department and the difficult decisions that 
must be made to continue to operate in an efficient and 
effective manner in these extremely tight fiscal times. The 
Committee has provided the Office of the General Counsel its 
full budget request and does not expect the Office to seek 
reimbursement from other agencies' appropriations in this bill 
to supplement its appropriation.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
1995 appropriation......................................        $520,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 535,000
Provided in the bill....................................         520,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -15,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $520,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $15,000 below the budget 
request.
    Research is the future of American agriculture. It is the 
best way to allow American farmers to compete worldwide and 
produce a steady, economical, and nutritious supply of food for 
the United States. Investments in agricultural research are 
critical to the nation's economy, the preservation of natural 
resources, and the health and well-being of its citizenry. 
While USDA research and development (R&D) is less than 2 
percent of the total Federal R&D expenditure, it plays a 
significant role in American agriculture's contributions to the 
nation's Gross Domestic Product, exports, trade, and 
employment.
    The Committee recognizes the Department's efforts to 
reorganize and streamline its programs to reduce overhead and 
operational costs. There appears to be considerable overlap of 
research among universities, the Agricultural Research Service, 
regulatory agencies, and private industry. The Committee 
expects the Department to take the lead in developing a 
coordinated long-term strategy that incorporates both long- and 
short-term applied and basic research activities.

                       Economic Research Service
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $53,936,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      54,665,000
Provided in the bill....................................      53,131,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -805,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -1,534,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the 
Economic Analysis Staff and the EEO counseling function are included.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Economic Research Service the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $53,131,000, a decrease of $805,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$1,534,000 below the budget request.
    The amount does not include funding for rice modeling 
research. The Committee believes this funding should be awarded 
competitively through the competitive research grants program 
under the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
    The Committee encourages the continued support of economic 
analyses of the nursery and greenhouse industry.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $81,424,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      89,837,000
Provided in the bill....................................      81,107,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -317,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -8,730,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the 
Economic Analysis Staff and the EEO counseling function are included.

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, state, and county agricultural 
statistics, which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. These statistics provide 
accurate and timely estimates of current agricultural 
production and measures of the economic and environmental 
welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.

                          committee provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $81,107,000, a decrease 
of $317,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $8,730,000 below the budget request.

                     Agricultural Research Service
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $714,689,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     709,810,000
Provided in the bill....................................     705,610,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -9,079,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -4,200,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the EEO 
counseling function are included.

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

                          committee provisions

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $705,610,000, a decrease of $9,079,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$4,200,000 below the budget request.
    ARS laboratories.--The Committee supports the Department's 
efforts to streamline and reduce costs associated with 
operating research facilities. The Committee is also cognizant 
of the importance of the research carried out within these 
laboratories. The President's budget recommends that 12 
research locations be closed. The Committee notes that 9 of 
these research locations were proposed for closure in the 
previous budget. Congress had directed that further evaluations 
be conducted on these sites before concluding action on these 
proposals. These assessments were not carried out as directed. 
The Committee has not been furnished adequate justification to 
support the closure of these laboratories. However, the 
Committee is faced with reduced funding allocations and 
recognizes that difficult decisions must be made within the 
scope of the information available. In this regard, the 
Committee concurs with the Administration's proposal to close 
research facilities at Brawley, California; Chatsworth, New 
Jersey; Orono, Maine; Brownwood, Texas; and Houma, Louisiana. 
The Committee has provided funds to continue the Federal 
research currently being conducted at these sites. The research 
being conducted is of long term importance. The ability to 
transfer some of the costs associated with owning certain 
facilities and still maintain the important research is of 
benefit to the government, effected industry, and consumers. 
The Committee directs that the research be maintained at El 
Reno, Oklahoma; Reno, Nevada; Miami, Florida; and Clemson, 
South Carolina.
    Program leadership and resources should be redirected and 
consolidated at primary ARS facilities to coordinate and carry 
out research currently assigned to East Grand Forks, Minnesota 
and Sidney, Montana. These locations should be relegated to 
worksite status if required to be maintained for plot work, 
germ plasm collections, or other physical or research 
applications. The Jackson, Tennessee location is university 
owned and houses only one ARS scientist. This scientist should 
work out of the Stoneville, Mississippi office. The Houma, 
Louisiana property should revert back to the ownership of the 
American Sugarcane League. Program leadership and resources are 
to be transferred to New Orleans, Louisiana and the Houma 
facility used as a worksite. The transfer of Federal property 
at Brownwood Texas; Brawley, California; Houma, Louisiana; and 
Lewisburg, Tennessee is included in the appropriations bill 
language.
    Budget request.--The budget request proposed several 
increases for research in integrated pest management, 
environmental quality, pre- and post-harvest food safety, and 
nutrition monitoring. The Committee is unable to concur with 
all the proposed increases. The Committee provides significant 
increases to integrated pest management and environmental 
quality within the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service (CSREES) budget and, therefore, does not 
provide the additional funding requested for the Agricultural 
Research Service. The Committee also deletes funding for food 
safety research within the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
and directs that FSIS coordinate its research needs with ARS. 
The Agricultural Research Service should reprioritize its food 
safety research to accommodate FSIS, but should balance all 
food safety research so it is not out of proportion to other 
needs. The Committee also defers the request for the survey on 
nutrition monitoring.
    Continuing programs.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue at last year's levels 
the following areas of research: composting in Ohio; Hawaiian 
sugarcane; Northwest Small Fruit Research Center; sweet potato 
whitefly; long staple cotton; locoweed; western pecan research; 
grape phylloxera and virology; Arkansas Children's Hospital 
nutrition; lyme disease in New York and Connecticut; 
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation; aflatoxin; 
sugar beet research in Ft. Collins, Colorado; potato research 
including tri-state varietal research; soybean cyst nematode; 
wild rice in Minnesota; weed control research in Albany, 
California; terrestrial systems (CIESIN); grass seed cropping 
systems; vegetable handling research; meat and poultry 
research; fungal phytase and natural products research.
    Root weevil.--Presently there are about 142,000 acres 
infested with a root weevil known as Diaprepes abbrevatus. This 
pest is causing estimated annual losses of $73 million in 
Florida. Efforts to eradicate and/or control its spread have 
proven unsuccessful. The Committee provides $400,000 for the 
ARS to develop a research plan that would eliminate this threat 
and stop its expansion to other states.
    National Arboretum.--Nursery and floral crops account for 
11 percent of the total cash value of all U.S. agricultural 
products. The Committee expects ARS to give consideration to 
expanded research in these areas. In addition, since its 
founding in 1927, the U.S. National Arboretum has introduced 
over 150 important new cultivars. Many disease-resistant and 
ornamental plants derived from Arboretum research are on 
display at that facility in Washington. Much of the unique 
opportunities available from research interpretation and 
visitor services of the Arboretum remain untapped. The 
Committee directs that not less than an additional $200,000 be 
available for an interpretive specialist to adapt existing 
collections to modern interpretive use. Also, not less than an 
additional $150,000 should be made available for expansion of 
the horticultural and research internship program.
    Animal Improvement Program.--For the Animal Improvement 
Program Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, the Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000. This laboratory is 
understaffed and is comprised of geneticists and computer 
scientists who are responsible for assembling, analyzing, and 
reporting vital production information that dairy farmers use 
to improve the breeding quality of dairy cattle.
    Effect of Diet, Nutrition, and Lifestyle on Human Health 
and Risk of Disease.--Diet and nutrition have a substantial 
impact on health. Nutritionally well-balanced diets may 
significantly reduce the risk of many diseases, while improper 
dietary patterns may increase risk for diseases that are costly 
to treat. Dietary choices and their specific effects on health 
are the product of complex interactions among physiological, 
environmental, behavioral, social, and genetic factors. For 
example, physiological requirements for many nutrients increase 
during pregnancy and proper maternal nutrition is critical to 
normal fetal development. Genetic factors play an equivalent, 
pivotal role in health as evidenced by the effect of sodium on 
the development of high blood pressure in certain individuals 
or the high degree of individuality in plasma cholesterol 
response to dietary fat and cholesterol. For a specific 
compound, the definition of excessive is therefore influenced 
by genetic and physiological factors.
    Excessive alcohol consumption is linked to higher risk of 
high blood pressure and hemorrhagic stroke as well as cirrhosis 
and early death. However, there is also evidence from 
epidemiologic studies suggesting that moderate alcohol 
consumption may be positively associated with cardiovascular 
health. In addition to alcohol, wine contains antioxidants that 
may offer a protective element for cardiovascular disease. The 
Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to support and 
assist research efforts in these areas, especially the impact 
of alcohol on cardiovascular health and longevity and on the 
dietary role of antioxidants and moderate alcohol consumption, 
and to develop a working strategy to assure future research on 
this important issue.
    Rangeland management.--The Committee provides an increase 
of not less than $500,000 for the ARS Joranado Experimental 
Range. These additional funds will be used to bring together 
ARS scientists with the New Mexico State Agricultural 
Experiment Station and Physical Sciences Laboratory, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science 
Foundation's long-term ecological research program. The funding 
will help address new methods for monitoring, remediation, and 
development of decision models for rangeland management.
    Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase its 
research toward finding alternatives to pesticides and 
improving post-harvest technologies for apples.
    Citrus tristeza virus.--It is estimated that if a serious 
outbreak of citrus tristeza virus occurs in the U.S., the 
industry could lose up to one billion dollars in just the next 
few years. Florida, alone, could suffer over $500 million in 
losses in five years. To help combat this deadly citrus tree 
virus, the Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to begin 
research on control of this pest.
    Environmental quality.--Since the Committee's 
recommendation for the CSREES includes significant funds for 
PM-10 research, the ARS should closely coordinate its research 
on this issue with existing activities. An increase of not more 
than $500,000 may be used for additional PM-10 research.
    Centers of Excellence.--Due to severe fiscal constraints 
the Committee directs that no new Centers of Excellence at 
universities and colleges be established.
    Binational Agricultural Research and Development (BARD).--
The Committee provides funding for the U.S.-Israel Binational 
Agricultural Research and Development program at $2,500,000, 
the same level as last year.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$2,000,000 for additional research related to a replacement for 
methyl bromide.
    Human nutrition.--The Committee expects the agency to 
expand its research related to human nutrition and chronic 
diseases. Accordingly, the Committee provides an additional 
$1,000,000 for this type of research.
    National Agricultural Library.--The Committee concurs with 
the budget request for upgrades and preservation of materials 
for the National Agricultural Library.
    Sacramento Valley Soil and Water Quality.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for research to address the problems of 
reduced crop yields in the Sacramento Valley of California 
caused by increasing levels of salinity, sodicity and hydrogen 
sulfides in the soils and water. Such study shall be carried 
out by the United States Salinity Laboratory at Riverside in 
coordination with the area Cooperation Extension farm advisor 
and other appropriate land, air and water resources university-
based researchers.

                        buildings and facilities
1995 appropriation......................................     $43,718,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      30,200,000
Provided in the bill....................................      30,200,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -13,518,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee Provisions

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities 
the Committee provides $30,200,000, a decrease of $13,518,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the same 
amount as the budget request. The following table summarizes 
the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE                     
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             FY 1995   FY 1996    House 
                                             enacted   request    bill  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
         BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES                                       
                                                                        
Arizona:                                                                
    Water Conservation Laboratory and                                   
     Western Cotton Research Laboratory...       396  ........  ........
Arkansas:                                                               
    Rice Germplasm Center, Stuttgart......     4,752  ........  ........
California:                                                             
    Horticulture Crops Research Lab,                                    
     Fresno to Parlier....................     2,630  ........  ........
    Western Regional Research Center......       919  ........  ........
Florida:                                                                
    Citrus Research Lab, Orlando..........     2,900  ........     1,500
France:                                                                 
    European Biological Control                                         
     Laboratory, Montpellier..............  ........     2,600     2,600
Illinois:                                                               
    National Center for Agricultural                                    
     Utilization Research, Peoria.........  ........    11,700     9,700
Iowa:                                                                   
    National Swine Research Facility......     6,259  ........  ........
Kansas:                                                                 
    Grain marketing research lab..........       950  ........  ........
Louisiana:                                                              
    Southern Regional Research Center.....     2,934       900       900
Maryland:                                                               
    Beltsville Agricultural Research                                    
     Center...............................     3,960    10,000     8,000
Mississippi:                                                            
    National Center for Natural Products..     3,578  ........  ........
    National Center for Warm Water                                      
     Aquaculture..........................     1,747  ........  ........
New York:                                                               
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.....     1,168     5,000     5,000
South Carolina:                                                         
    U.S. Vegetable Lab, Charleston........     5,544  ........  ........
Texas:                                                                  
    Plant Stress Lab, Texas Tech.                                       
     University...........................     1,051  ........     1,500
    Subtropical Lab, Weslaco..............     3,009  ........     1,000
West Virginia:                                                          
    National Center for Cold Water                                      
     Aquaculture..........................     1,921  ........  ........
                                           -----------------------------
      Total, Buildings and facilities.....    43,718    30,200    30,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is aware that some research proposed for the 
Ft. Pierce, Florida laboratory is being conducted at 
Charleston, South Carolina, and Miami, Florida laboratories. 
ARS should reconsider the proposed size of the Ft. Pierce 
laboratory and downsize it accordingly.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                   research and education activities
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $433,438,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     432,212,000
Provided in the bill....................................     389,372,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -44,066,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -42,840,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the EEO 
counseling function are included.

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

                          committee provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act the Committee provides 
$166,165,000, a decrease of $5,135,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $5,135,000 
below the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research the Committee provides 
$20,185,000, a decrease of $624,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $624,000 below the 
budget request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University the Committee provides $27,313,000, a decrease of 
$844,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
$844,000 below the budget request.

                          Competitive Research

    For competitive research grants the Committee provides 
$98,810,000. Due to shifting in categories of research in 
fiscal year 1996, the comparison to fiscal year 1995 is an 
increase of $4,000,000.

                        Special Research Grants

    For special research grants authorized by the Act of August 
4, 1965 (7 U.S.C. 405i(c)), and other Acts the Committee 
provides $31,485,000, a decrease of $15,099,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and an increase of 
$16,435,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee has included a new category of special 
research grant. For improved pest control the Committee 
provides $11,599,000, a decrease of $13,369,000 below the 
budget request.
    Alliance for Food Protection (GA, NE).--The Committee 
provides $300,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection. This is 
a joint effort between the University of Georgia and the 
University of Nebraska to facilitate development and 
modification of food processing and preservation technologies 
to enhance safety of food products.
    Landscaping for water quality (IA, GA).--The Committee 
provides $300,000 for a joint project supported by the Leopold 
Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the University of 
Georgia. The project will work toward improved models for 
optimization of economic and environmental quality degradation 
due to agriculture and to improved control of environmental 
degradation due to animal production and processing facilities 
and associated waste.
    Organic waste utilization (NM).--The Committee provides 
$150,000 to begin a unique partnership between the Waste 
Education Research Consortium and the Composting Council 
Research Foundation. The project will validate the use of 
composted urban and rural wastes to address water conservation, 
nonpoint source pollution control, and rangeland restoration 
requirements in the Southwest.
    Viticulture Consortium (NY, CA).--The Committee provides 
$500,000 for the Viticulture Consortium. This project will be 
jointly operated from Cornell University and the University of 
California to enhance United States viticulture. Many European 
countries are expending significant research dollars on 
viticulture and for the United States to remain competitive 
worldwide, research is our best opportunity to compete.
    For research on alternative crops the Committee provides 
$650,000. Included in this total is $500,000 for research on 
canola and $150,000 for research on hesperaloe.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for the above activities:

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        FY 1995     FY 1996             
                                        enacted     request   House bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
  RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES                                     
                                                                        
Payments Under Hatch Act.............    171,304    171,304     166,165 
Cooperative forestry research                                           
 (McIntire-Stennis)..................     20,809     20,809      20,185 
Payments to 1890 colleges and                                           
 Tuskegee............................     28,157     28,157      27,313 
Special Research Grants (P.L. 89-                                       
 106):                                                                  
    Aflatoxin........................        113  ..........        113 
    Agricultural diversification (HI)        131  ..........  ..........
    Agricultural management systems                                     
     (MA)............................        221  ..........  ..........
    Alfalfa (KS).....................        106  ..........        106 
    Alliance for food protection (NE,                                   
     GA).............................  .........  ..........        300 
    Alternative cropping systems                                        
     (Southeast).....................        235  ..........  ..........
    Alternative crops (ND)...........        592  ..........  ..........
    Alternative crops for arid lands                                    
     (TX)............................         85  ..........         85 
    Alternative Marine and Fresh                                        
     Water Species (MS)..............        308  ..........  ..........
    Alternative pest control (AR)....      1,184  ..........  ..........
    Alternative to pesticides and                                       
     critical issues.................  .........      5,000       2,000 
    Aquaculture (CT).................        181  ..........        181 
    Aquaculture (IL).................        169  ..........        169 
    Aquaculture (LA).................        330  ..........        330 
    Aquaculture (MS).................        592  ..........  ..........
    Aquatic food safety and quality                                     
     (FL)............................        181  ..........  ..........
    Asian Products lab (OR)..........        212  ..........  ..........
    Bacoc Institute (WI).............        312  ..........  ..........
    Beef fat content (IA)............        201  ..........  ..........
    Biodiesel research (MO)..........        152  ..........  ..........
    Broom snakeweed (NM).............        169  ..........        169 
    Canola (KS)......................         85  ..........         85 
    Center for animal health and                                        
     productivity (PA)...............        113  ..........        113 
    Center for innovative food                                          
     technology (OH).................        181  ..........        181 
    Center for rural studies (VT)....         32  ..........  ..........
    Chesapeake Bay acquaculture......        370  ..........        370 
    Competitiveness of agricultural                                     
     products (WA)...................        677  ..........        500 
    Cool season legume research (ID,                                    
     WA).............................        103  ..........        103 
    Cranberry/blueberry disease and                                     
     breeding (NJ)...................        220  ..........  ..........
    CRP acreage usage (MO)...........         52  ..........  ..........
    Dairy and meat goat research (TX)         63  ..........         63 
    Delta rural revitalization (MS)..        148  ..........  ..........
    Developing peas and lentils for                                     
     residue to meet SCS standards                                      
     (WA)............................        226  ..........  ..........
    Dried bean (ND)..................         85  ..........         85 
    Drought mitigation (NE)..........        200  ..........        200 
    Energy/Biofuels..................  .........        750   ..........
    Environmental research (NY)......        486  ..........        486 
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)......        285  ..........  ..........
    Farm and rural business finance                                     
     (IL, AR)........................        106  ..........  ..........
    Floriculture (HI)................        250  ..........  ..........
    Food and Agriculture Policy                                         
     Institute (IA, MO)..............        850  ..........        850 
    Food irradiation (IA)............        201  ..........  ..........
    Food marketing policy center (CT)        332  ..........        332 
    Food processing center (NE)......         42  ..........  ..........
    Food safety consortium (AR, KS,                                     
     IA).............................      1,743  ..........      1,743 
    Food systems research group (WI).        221  ..........        221 
    Forestry (AR)....................        523  ..........  ..........
    Fruit and vegetable market                                          
     analysis (AZ, MO)...............        296  ..........        296 
    Generic commodity promotion                                         
     research and evaluation (NY)....        212  ..........        212 
    Global change....................        (1)      3,500       1,625 
    Global marketing support service                                    
     (AR)............................         92  ..........  ..........
    Grass seed cropping systems for a                                   
     sustainable agriculture (WA, OR,                                   
     ID).............................        423  ..........        423 
    Great Plains agricultural policy                                    
     center (OK).....................         42  ..........  ..........
    Human nutrition (AR).............  .........  ..........        425 
    Human nutrition (IA).............        473  ..........  ..........
    Human nutrition (LA).............        752  ..........        752 
    Human nutrition (NY).............        622  ..........        622 
    Illinios-Missouri Alliance for                                      
     Biotechnology...................      1,357  ..........      1,357 
    Improved dairy management                                           
     practices (PA)..................        296  ..........        296 
    Improved fruit practices (MI)....        445  ..........        445 
    Integrated production systems                                       
     (OK)............................        161  ..........  ..........
    International arid lands                                            
     consortium......................        329  ..........        329 
    Iowa biotechnology consortium....      1,792  ..........  ..........
    Jointed goatgrass (WA)...........        296  ..........        296 
    Landscaping for water quality                                       
     (GA)............................  .........  ..........        300 
    Livestock and dairy policy (NY,                                     
     TX).............................        445  ..........        445 
    Lowbush blueberry research (ME)..        220  ..........  ..........
    Low-input agriculture (MN).......        195  ..........  ..........
    Maple reseach (VT)...............         84  ..........  ..........
    Michigan biotechnology consortium      1,995  ..........      1,000 
    Midwest advanced food                                               
     manufacturing alliance..........        423  ..........        423 
    Midwest agricultural products                                       
     (IA)............................        592  ..........  ..........
    Midwest feeds consortium.........        423  ..........  ..........
    Milk safety (PA).................        268  ..........  ..........
    Minor use animal drug............        (1)        550         550 
    Molluscan shellfish (OR).........        250  ..........  ..........
    Multi-commodity research (OR)....        364  ..........  ..........
    Multi-cropping strategies for                                       
     aquaculture (HI)................        127  ..........  ..........
    National biological impact                                          
     assessment......................        254        300         254 
    Navajo Nation conservation (AZ)..         91  ..........  ..........
    Nematode resistance genetic                                         
     engineering (NM)................        127  ..........        127 
    Non-food agricultural products                                      
     (NE)............................         93  ..........  ..........
    North central biotechnology                                         
     initiative......................      2,000  ..........      2,000 
    Oil resources from desert planst                                    
     (NM)............................        169  ..........        169 
    Oregon-Mass.-Penn. biotechnolgy..        524  ..........  ..........
    Organic waste utilization (NM)...  .........  ..........        150 
    Peach tree short life (SC).......        162  ..........  ..........
    Perishable commodities (GA)......        212  ..........  ..........
    Pest control alternative (SC)....        106  ..........  ..........
    Pesticide research (WA)..........        115  ..........  ..........
    Phytophthora root rot (NM).......        127  ..........        127 
    Potato research..................      1,214  ..........        638 
    Preservation and processing                                         
     research (OK)...................        226  ..........  ..........
    Procerum root disease (VA).......         22  ..........  ..........
    Product development and marketing                                   
     center (ME).....................        360  ..........  ..........
    Red River Corridor (MN, ND)......        169  ..........        169 
    Regional barley gene mapping                                        
     project.........................        348  ..........        348 
    Regionalized implications of farm                                   
     programs (MO, TX)...............        294  ..........        294 
    Rural development centers (PA, IA                                   
     (ND), MS, OR)...................        423        450         400 
    Rural environmental research (IL)         90  ..........  ..........
    Rural housing needs (NE).........         68  ..........  ..........
    Rural policies institute (AR, NE,                                   
     MO).............................        644  ..........        322 
    Russian wheat aphid (WA, OR, CO,                                    
     CA, ID).........................        455  ..........  ..........
    Seafood and aquaculture                                             
     harvesting, processing, and                                        
     marketing (MS)..................        305  ..........  ..........
    Seafood research (OR)............        275  ..........  ..........
    Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)        212  ..........        212 
    Soil and water research (OH).....        169  ..........  ..........
    Southwest consortium for plant                                      
     genetics and water resources....        338  ..........        338 
    Soybean bioprocessing (IA).......        277  ..........  ..........
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO).......        303  ..........        303 
    STEEP II--water quality in                                          
     Northwest.......................        829  ..........        500 
    Sunflower insects (ND)...........        127  ..........  ..........
    Sustainable agriculture (MI).....        445  ..........  ..........
    Sustainable agriculture and                                         
     natural resources (PA)..........         94  ..........  ..........
    Sustainable agriculture systems                                     
     (NE)............................         59  ..........  ..........
    Swine research (MN)..............        119  ..........  ..........
    Taxol cultivation (CT)...........         42  ..........  ..........
    Tillage, silviculture, waste                                        
     management (LA).................        212  ..........        212 
    Tropical and subtropical.........      2,809  ..........      2,809 
    Urban pests (GA).................         64  ..........         64 
    Value-added wheat (KS)...........        212  ..........  ..........
    Viticulture consortium (NY, CA)..  .........  ..........        500 
    Waste utilization (NC)...........        373  ..........  ..........
    Water conservation (KS)..........         79  ..........         79 
    Water management (AL)............        337  ..........  ..........
    Water quality....................        (1)      4,500       2,500 
    Weed control (ND)................        423  ..........  ..........
    Wheat genetic research (KS)......        176  ..........        177 
    Wood utilization research (OR,                                      
     MS, NC, MN, ME, MI).............      3,758  ..........  ..........
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY).......        212  ..........        212 
                                      ----------------------------------
      Total, Special Research Grants.     46,584     15,050      31,485 
                                      ==================================
Improved pest control:                                                  
    Integrated pest management.......        (1)      7,000       3,093 
    Pesticide clearance (IR-4).......      5,711     15,000       6,711 
    Pesticide impact assessment......        (1)      2,968       1,795 
                                      ----------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest control...      5,711     24,968      11,599 
                                      ==================================
Competitive research grants:                                            
    Plant systems....................     37,000     47,000      38,000 
    Animal systems...................     23,125     29,500      24,125 
    Nutrition, food quality and                                         
     health..........................      7,400     11,000       7,400 
    Natural resources and the                                           
     environment.....................     16,650     27,000      17,650 
    Processes and new products.......      6,935      9,000       6,935 
    Markets, trade and policy........      3,700      6,500       4,700 
    Water quality....................      4,708  ..........  ..........
    Integrated pest management.......      2,310  ..........  ..........
    Pesticide impact assessment......      1,295  ..........  ..........
                                      ----------------------------------
      Total, Competitive research                                       
       grants........................    103,123    130,000      98,810 
                                      ==================================
Animal Health and Disease (Sec. 1433)      5,551      5,551       5,051 
Critical Agricultural Materials Act..        500  ..........  ..........
Aquaculture Centers (Sec. 1475)......      4,000      4,333       4,000 
Rangeland Research Grants (Sec. 1480)        475        475         475 
Grants and contracts.................      8,990  ..........  ..........
Alternative Crops....................      1,318  ..........        500 
Low-input agriculture................      8,112      9,500       8,000 
Higher Education.....................      8,850      7,500       8,850 
Capacity building grants.............  .........     10,550   ..........
Native American Institutions                                            
 Endowment Fund......................  .........     (4,600)     (4,600)
Advanced materials...................  .........      2,250         650 
Federal Administration:                                                 
    Agricultural biotechnology.......        349        500   ..........
    Agriculture development im                                          
     American Pacific................        564  ..........        564 
    Alternative fuels                                                   
     characterization lab (ND).......        218  ..........  ..........
    American Indian Initiative of the                                   
     Arid Lands Development Fund.....        434  ..........  ..........
    Center for Agricultural and Rural                                   
     Development (IA)................        655  ..........  ..........
    Center for North American Studies                                   
     (TX)............................         87  ..........         87 
    Geographic information system....        939  ..........  ..........
    Herd management (TN).............        535  ..........  ..........
    Mississippi Valley State                                            
     University......................        583  ..........  ..........
    National Potato Trade and Tariff                                    
     Association.....................         93  ..........  ..........
    Office of grants and program                                        
     systems.........................        292        314         314 
    Pay costs and FERS (prior).......        480        451         451 
    Peer panels......................        227        500         300 
    PM-10 study (CA, WA).............        873  ..........        873 
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MS,                                     
     MA, SC).........................      3,054  ..........      3,000 
    Vocational aquaculture education.        436  ..........  ..........
    Water quality (IL)...............        928  ..........        700 
    1890 capacity building...........      9,207  ..........  ..........
                                      ----------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration..     19,954      1,765       6,289 
                                      ==================================
      Total, Research and Education                                     
       Activities....................    433,438    432,212    389,372  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included in Grants and contracts line for FY 1995.                  

                          Extension Activities
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $438,744,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     437,552,000
Provided in the bill....................................     413,257,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -25,487,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -24,295,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the EEO 
counseling function are included.

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

                          Committee provisions

    For extension activities the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $413,257,000, a decrease of $25,487,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$24,295,000 below the budget request.

    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                          SCIENCE AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FY 1995    FY 1996     House  
                                          enacted    request      bill  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES                                          
                                                                        
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)................    272,582    272,582    264,405
Smith Lever: 3(d)                                                       
    Pest management....................     10,947     15,000     10,947
    Water quality......................     11,234     11,234     10,897
    Farm safety........................      2,988        988      2,898
    Food and nutrition education                                        
     (EFNEP)...........................     61,431     61,431     59,588
    Pesticide impact assessment........      3,363      3,363      3,363
    Rural development centers..........        950        950        921
    Sustainable agriculture............      3,463      4,963      3,463
    Food safety........................      2,475      2,475      2,400
    Youth at risk......................     10,000     10,000      9,700
    Indian reservation agents..........      1,750      1,750      1,697
    Nutrition education initiative.....      4,265      4,265  .........
    Pesticide applicator training......  .........      2,000  .........
1890's Colleges and Tuskegee...........     25,472     26,236     24,708
1890's facilities grants...............      7,901      7,901      7,664
Renewable Resources Extension Act......      3,341      3,341      3,241
Agricultural telecommunications........      1,221      1,221      1,184
Rural health and safety education......      2,750      2,750  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Subtotal.........................    426,133    432,450    407,076
                                        ================================
Federal Administration and special                                      
 grants:                                                                
    General administration.............      5,241      5,102      4,924
    Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS)......        331  .........  .........
    Pilot tech. transfer (WI)..........        165  .........        160
    Rural rehabilitation (GA)..........        250  .........  .........
    Income enhancement demonstration                                    
     (OH)..............................        250  .........        243
    Rural development (NM).............        230  .........        223
    Rural development (NE).............        392  .........  .........
    Rural development (OK).............        300  .........  .........
    Cinch bug/Russian wheat aphid                                       
     project (NE)......................         67  .........  .........
    Beef producers' improvement (AR)...        200  .........  .........
    Integrated cow/calf resources                                       
     management (IA)...................        350  .........  .........
    Extension specialist (AR)..........        100  .........  .........
    Rural center for the study and                                      
     promotion of HIV/STD prevention                                    
     (IN)..............................        250  .........        243
    Cranberry development (ME).........         50  .........  .........
    Delta teachers academy.............      3,935  .........  .........
    Wood biomass as an alternative farm                                 
     product (NY)......................        200  .........        194
    Range improvement (NM).............        200  .........        194
    Agricultural Plastics (VT).........        100  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration....     12,611      5,102      6,181
                                        ================================
      Total, Extension Activities......    438,744    437,552    413,257
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee does not provide funds for the Nutrition 
Education Initiative (NEI). NEI was initially funded in fiscal 
year 1993 to provide nutrition education to WIC recipients. 
Nutrition education is an integral part of the WIC program, 
itself. Due to severe fiscal constraints the Committee has 
deferred this funding and has increased the WIC program. The 
Committee believes the WIC funding allows for this important 
component to continue in an effective and efficient manner. The 
Committee also notes that funding is included for the expanded 
food and nutrition program (EFNEP) and roughly 50 percent of 
the EFNEP homemakers are also receiving WIC benefits.
    No funds are included for the purpose of establishing the 
Centers of Excellence.
    The Committee has not provided the requested increase for 
pesticide applicator training (PAT). Funding for PAT assistance 
has been provided in the past through the pest management 
program and through funding received from the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The Committee expects this assistance to be 
continued in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
applicants for section 3(d) grants to develop matching funding 
from non-Federal sources. It is not the Committee's intention 
to prevent funding for any section 3(d) grant because of a lack 
of full matching funds this year, but rather to encourage, to 
the maximum extent possible, that matching funds be provided. 
In this period of scarce Federal resources, the need for 
matching funds will take on increasing importance.
    The Committee includes $50,000, within the total available 
for the Youth-at-Risk Program, for the I-CARE Program in Marion 
County, Illinois.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................    ($4,600,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (4,600,000)
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    (+4,600,000)
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides the first installment to 
establish an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (29 
Tribally-controlled colleges). This program will enhance 
educational opportunities for Native Americans by building 
educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of 
student recruitment and retention, curricula development, 
faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems, and 
scientific instrumentation for teaching. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: sixty percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and forty percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed 
in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                          committee provisions

    For the Native American institutions endowment fund the 
Committee provides $4,600,000, the same amount as the budget 
request. This program is a new program to enhance educational 
opportunities for Native Americans. On the termination of each 
fiscal year the Secretary will use earned interest to assist 
tribally controlled colleges.

                        buildings and facilities
1995 appropriation......................................     $62,744,000
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -62,744,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The CSREES Buildings and Facilities account was established 
for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
facilities which directly or indirectly support research and 
extension programs of the Department.

                          committee provisions

    For Buildings and Facilities the Committee has deferred 
funding. This is $62,744,000 below the amount available for 
fiscal year 1995. The Committee expects to make an in-depth 
review of policies and practices related to this program and 
may issue new guidelines under which facilities may receive 
funding.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
1995 appropriation......................................        $605,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 625,000
Provided in the bill....................................         605,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -20,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$605,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1995 
and a decrease of $20,000 below the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                        
                   Appropriation        User fees         Total, APHIS  
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.   \1\ $346,991,000      ($96,660,000)     ($443,651,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimate......        330,025,000      (100,254,000)      (430,279,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........        333,410,000      (100,254,000)      (433,664,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......        -13,581,000       (+3,594,000)       (-9,987,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimate..         +3,385,000  .................       (+3,385,000)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
  Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for pre-   
  harvest pathogen reduction, Salmonella enteritidis, and Civil Rights  
  Enforcement are included.                                             


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

                          committee provisions

    For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service the 
Committee provides $433,664,000, a decrease of $9,987,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and an increase of 
$3,385,000 above the budget request. The following table 
reflects the amounts provided by the Committee:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE               
                         [Dollars in thousands]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1995      FY 1996               
                                     enacted      request     House bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:                                          
    Agricultural quarantine                                             
     inspection..................      $25,140      $24,914      $24,914
    User fees....................       96,660      100,254      100,254
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AQI..............      121,800      125,168      125,168
    Foot-and-mouth disease.......        3,995        4,027        3,991
    Mediterranean fruit fly                                             
     exclusion...................       10,089       10,114       10,079
    Mexican fruit fly exclusion..        2,156        2,193        2,153
    Import/Export inspection.....        6,535        6,559        6,528
    International programs.......        6,106        6,122        6,100
    Screwworm....................       34,029       33,969       33,969
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease                                           
       Exclusion.................      184,710      188,152      187,988
                                  ======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health                                              
 Monitoring:                                                            
    Animal health monitoring and                                        
     surveillance................       59,381       59,276       59,276
    Animal and plant health                                             
     regulatory enforcement......        5,865        5,855        5,855
    Fruit fly detection..........        3,923        3,937        3,919
    Pest detection...............        4,206        4,586        4,202
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Plant and Animal                                           
       Health Monitoring.........       73,375       73,654       73,252
                                  ======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management                                          
 Programs:                                                              
    Animal damage control                                               
     operations..................       26,592       20,297       26,566
    Aquaculture..................          493          413          413
    Biocontrol...................        7,504        6,290        7,497
    Boll weevil..................       18,084       11,016       18,066
    Brucellosis eradication......       27,781       21,580       24,663
    Cattle ticks.................        4,578        3,837        3,837
    Golden nematode..............          615          435          435
    Grasshopper and Morman                                              
     cricket.....................  ...........        2,524  ...........
    Gypsy moth...................        5,177        4,367        4,367
    Imported fire ant............        1,500  ...........        1,000
    Miscellaneous plant diseases.        1,988        1,516        1,516
    Noxious weeds................          404          338          338
    Pink bollworm................        1,069          901        1,068
    Pre-harvest program..........        2,800  ...........  ...........
    Pseudorabies.................        4,543        2,863        4,543
    Salmonella enteritidis.......        3,384  ...........  ...........
    Scrapie......................        2,969        2,172        2,967
    Sweet potato whitefly........        2,400        2,012        2,398
    Tropical bont tick...........          537          452          537
    Tuberculosis.................        5,499        4,609        4,609
    Witchweed....................        1,975        1,663        1,663
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease                                           
       Management................      119,892       87,285      106,483
                                  ======================================
4. Animal Care:                                                         
    Animal welfare...............        9,262        9,185        9,185
    Horse protection.............          362          363          362
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Animal Care.........        9,624        9,548        9,547
                                  ======================================
5. Scientific and Technical                                             
 Services:                                                              
    Animal damage control methods                                       
     development.................        9,681        9,665        9,665
    Biotechnology/environmental                                         
     protection..................        7,690        7,677        7,677
    Integrated systems                                                  
     acquisition project.........        3,500        4,055        4,055
    Plant methods development                                           
     labs........................        5,059        5,084        5,053
    Veterinary biologics.........       10,371       10,392       10,360
    Veterinary diagnostics.......       14,811       14,785       14,785
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Scientific and                                             
       Technical Services........       51,112       51,658       51,595
                                  ======================================
6. Contingency Fund..............        4,938       19,982        4,799
                                  ======================================
      Total, Salaries and                                               
       Expenses..................      443,651      430,279      433,664
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--The Committee 
has included language proposed by the Administration allowing 
amounts in the AQI user fee account to be available for 
authorized purposes without further appropriation in fiscal 
year 1996. The Committee is aware of the need for increased 
staffing on the Island of Lanai, Hawaii, and at Dulles 
International Airport and expects APHIS to address these needs. 
APHIS should also assure adequate staffing levels for 
inspection services along the U.S./Mexico border.
    Animal damage control.--The Committee expects APHIS to 
assure, to the maximum extent possible, that all control 
activities be cost-shared with local sponsors. The Committee 
expects APHIS to continue work related to beaver control in 
East Texas, the mountain lion threat to wool growers in 
California, rabies epizootics control in South Texas, and 
blackbird damage control.
    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
expects the Department to enhance funding for the National 
Poultry Improvement Plan.
    Horse Protection.--In light of current fiscal constraints, 
the Committee expects the Department to establish programs and 
policies for enforcement of the Horse Protection Act which will 
provide for a more efficient and effective use of Department 
resources. The Committee expects the Department to work with 
horse industry organizations to improve the enforcement of the 
Act by enhancing the regulatory responsibilities of USDA-
certified organizations. The Committee expects APHIS to provide 
a report to the Committee regarding its progress in achieving 
this objective by February 1, 1996.
    Vesicular Stomatitis.--The Committee directs that APHIS 
take all steps necessary to control vesicular stomatitis 
outbreaks in New Mexico and other states. APHIS should use 
contingency funds as needed to complete this effort.
    Avocados.--The Committee is concerned about the potential 
regulatory changes that would modify quarantine restrictions on 
the importation of fresh Mexican avocados. The Committee 
believes that adequate safeguards must be in place before 
regulations are promulgated to ensure that domestic avocados 
and other high-value crops are not subject to infestation by 
injurious exotic pests. The Committee expects the Secretary to: 
(1) ensure scientific credibility on pest risk assessment and 
risk management; (2) assure the Committee that the Department 
will commit the resources necessary to ensure effective 
oversight, inspection and enforcement of any importation system 
which may result; and (3) ensure that industry is provided with 
an opportunity to provide input on any proposed regulatory 
changes. The Committee further expects that the Secretary will 
keep all appropriate committees of the Congress fully informed 
regarding the Department's deliberations in this area and 
progress in meeting these objectives.
    One option for pest risk assessment and risk management 
that the Secretary may wish to consider would be use of an 
independent peer review panel.

                        buildings and facilities
1995 appropriation......................................      $6,973,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      12,541,000
Provided in the bill....................................      12,541,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +5,568,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, buildings 
and facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$12,541,000, an increase of $5,568,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget 
request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $56,591,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      50,607,000
Provided in the bill....................................      46,662,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -9,929,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -3,945,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for egg 
products inspection are included.

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

                          committee provisions

    For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$46,662,000, a decrease of $9,929,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $3,945,000 
below the budget request.
    The Committee provides $556,000 to continue implementation 
of the organic certification program. The Committee also 
provides $351,000 to offset increased Federal costs and state 
reimbursements in administering temperature requirements of the 
Egg Products Inspection Act.
    The Committee is aware that the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh 
Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993 mandates 
collections from handlers of cut flowers and fresh greens to 
pay for generic promotion, consumer information, and related 
research. The Committee is also aware that the Act directs the 
Secretary to hold an industry referendum within three years 
after collections begin. These collections began in January 
1995. After the industry implements and evaluates the program, 
the Committee directs the Secretary to hold an industry 
referendum as soon as possible.
    Due to severe fiscal constraints the Committee is not able 
to provide the budget request for pesticide recordkeeping or 
the Center of Excellence in World Food Distribution.
    The Committee urges the Department's consideration of a 
proposal from the Southwest Virginia Agricultural Association, 
Inc. to establish satellite farmers' markets in Southwest 
Virginia.
    The Committee again provides language to allow for the 
collection of fees for the development of standards.
                 limitation on administrative expenses
1995 limitation.........................................   ($57,054,000)
1996 budget limitation..................................    (58,461,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (58,461,000)
Comparison:
    1995 limitation.....................................    (+1,407,000)
    1996 budget limitation..............................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For a limitation on administrative expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service the Committee provides 
$58,461,000, an increase of $1,407,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget 
request.

          Funds for Strengthening markets, income, and supply

                              (section 32)
1995 appropriation......................................     $10,309,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      10,451,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,451,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +142,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all 
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural 
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of 
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or 
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the 
farmers' purchasing power.
    The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets 
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to 
encourage continued adequate production.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1994-1996:

         SECTION 32--ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1994-1996        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 1995 current       FY 1996 current  
                                                    FY 1994 actual          estimate              estimate      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs receipts)..      $5,355,068,525        $5,795,222,663        $6,263,764,062
Less transfers:                                                                                                 
    Food and Nutrition Service..................      -4,770,109,000        -5,249,077,000        -5,597,858,000
    Commerce Department.........................         -61,944,127           -64,765,383           -72,893,162
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers..........................      -4,832,053,127        -5,313,842,383        -5,670,751,162
                                                 ===============================================================
Budget authority................................         523,015,398           481,380,280           670,378,900
Unobligated balance available, start of year....         246,300,847           245,951,017           147,444,297
Recoveries of prior year obligations............          20,804,713  ....................  ....................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Available for obligation..................         790,120,958           727,331,297           740,457,197
                                                 ===============================================================
Less obligations:                                                                                               
Commodity procurement:                                                                                          
    Child nutrition purchases...................         399,713,755           400,000,000           400,000,000
    Emergency surplus removal...................          78,451,603            97,600,000  ....................
    Disaster relief.............................           3,463,455               480,000  ....................
    Sunflower oil purchase......................          50,000,000            25,650,000            23,900,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, commodity procurement..............         531,628,813           523,730,000           423,900,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Administrative funds:                                                                                           
    Commodity purchase service..................           4,422,834             6,098,000             6,106,000
    Marketing agreements and orders.............           8,118,294            10,309,000            10,451,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, administrative funds...............          12,541,128            16,407,000            16,557,000
                                                 ===============================================================
      Total, direct obligations.................         544,169,941           579,887,000           440,457,000
      Unobligated balance available end of year.         245,951,017           147,444,297           300,000,197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          committee provisions

    For the marketing agreements and orders program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$10,451,000, an increase of $142,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget request.

                   Payments to States and Possessions
1995 appropriation......................................      $1,200,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       1,200,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -200,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -200,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For payments to states and possessions the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,000,000, a decrease of $200,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $200,000 below the budget request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         Salaries and Expenses
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $23,314,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      23,679,000
Provided in the bill....................................      23,058,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -256,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -621,000


\1\ The 1995 appropriation is adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated to the 
Federal Grain Inspection Service and the Packers and Stockyards 
Administration are merged together to form the new Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration. Funds appropriated for Civil 
Rights Enforcement are included.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$23,058,000, a decrease of $256,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $621,000 below the 
budget request.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses
1995 limitation.........................................   ($42,784,000)
1996 budget limitation..................................    (42,784,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (42,784,000)
Comparison:
    1995 limitation.....................................................
    1996 budget limitation..............................................


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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,784,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the 
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with 
notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for 
flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 
and oversight or other uncontrollable factors occur.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................    \1\ $580,000
Provided in the bill....................................         450,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +450,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -130,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $450,000, an increase of 
$450,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a 
decrease of $130,000 below the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $516,738,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     594,889,000
Provided in the bill....................................     540,365,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +23,627,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -54,524,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for egg 
products inspection under the Agricultural Marketing Service and the 
pre-harvest pathogen reduction and the Salmonella enteritidis programs 
under the Salaries and Expenses account of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service are excluded. Funds appropriated for Civil Rights 
Enforcement are included.

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on 
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued 
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
    The major objectives of the Service are to assure that meat 
and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly 
labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide 
continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under 
the Egg Products Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen 
reduction program.
    Legislation was enacted in 1986 to amend the continuous 
inspection requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The 
new Processed Products Inspection Improvement Act of 1986 gives 
the Secretary discretion to schedule inspections at processing 
plants based upon such criteria as the nature of the product 
produced and the plants' compliance histories.
    The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic 
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or 
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and 
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export 
to the United States; and provides technical and financial 
assistance to states which maintain meat and poultry inspection 
programs.

                          committee provisions

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $540,365,000, an increase of 
$23,627,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $54,524,000 below the budget request.
    Funding is not included to continue the Salmonella 
enteritidis program. The egg industry has developed its own 
program; therefore, Federal funding is deferred.
    The amount provided includes pay increases and inflation 
costs to maintain current services in fiscal year 1996. The 
total also includes administrative and staff-year savings 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee provides $8,425,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for the field automation and information 
management project.
    The amount provided does not include funds for methods 
development and food safety research. The agency is directed to 
coordinate its research needs with the Agricultural Research 
Service.
    The Committee believes a HACCP regulatory reform process is 
needed to maintain the production of a clean, safe, quality 
meat product that ensures consumer confidence. The committee 
believes its objective of timely implementation of regulations 
that make the strongest practicable improvement in food safety 
is dependent upon the development of workable, scientifically 
sound rules. Therefore, the Committee has included language 
directing the Department to convert the rulemaking on Pathogen 
Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
Systems, the so-called ``Mega-Reg,'' to a negotiated rulemaking 
procedure. The Committee expects that the Department will be 
able to develop more effective food safety rules due to the 
quality of input this procedure will permit regarding issues 
addressed in this rulemaking and related regulatory 
requirements. Further, the Committee directs the Department to 
proceed expeditiously with this rulemaking to avoid significant 
delay in the promulgation of modernized meat and poultry 
regulations. Specifically, the Department is expected to act 
promptly to initiate a negotiated rulemaking and to require a 
report from the negotiated rulemaking committee within nine 
months of its establishment.

                        Farm Assistance Programs

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services
1995 appropriation......................................        $549,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 570,000
Provided in the bill....................................         549,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -21,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $549,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1995 and a decrease of $21,000 below the budget request.

                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency

    The Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) was established 
by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 
P.L. 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. The CFSA administers 
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs 
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC); the 
warehouse examination function; the conservation reserve 
program (CRP); and several other conservation cost-share 
programs from the former Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service; crop insurance and other risk management 
programs from the former Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; 
and farm ownership and operating, and emergency disaster loan 
programs from the former Farmers Home Administration.
    Production adjustment programs.--The Agricultural Act of 
1949, as amended, mandates production adjustment programs for 
wheat, cotton, and rice when carryover stocks are at specified 
levels. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 
1990 (FACT Act), approved on November 28, 1990, sets farm 
policy through the 1996 crops. The Agricultural Adjustment Act 
of 1938, as amended, authorizes program parameters for tobacco 
and peanuts.
    Designed to give farmers and ranchers the opportunity to 
earn incomes that are comparable with returns elsewhere in the 
economy, the program objectives include:
    1. The maintenance of national aggregate net farm income at 
levels sufficient to insure investment in agriculture necessary 
to utilize production capacity within environmental 
constraints;
    2. The development of agriculture policy and programs so 
that family farms will be strengthened and will provide 
adequate levels of net income per farm;
    3. The support of efforts to strengthen farmers' power to 
bargain in the sale of farm products and the purchase of farm 
inputs; and
    4. The continuation of the requirement for the maintenance 
of farmer-held and controlled grain reserves to aid in orderly 
marketing and for humanitarian use.
    The FACT Act continues the $50,000 limitation on deficiency 
and diversion payments and sets a limitation of $75,000 on 
marketing loan gains, emergency compensation (Findley) 
payments, and loan deficiency payments. The FACT Act also 
continues the overall limitation of $250,000 which includes all 
of the above payments as well as resource adjustment and 
inventory reduction payments. These limitations do not apply to 
support loans or purchases available to eligible program 
participants.
    Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various 
price support and related programs have been authorized in 
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's. 
Operations under these programs are financed through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) are utilized in the 
administration of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the 
Administrator of the CSFA is also Executive Vice President of 
the Corporation.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations 
and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480 and the National Wool Act.
    Farm credit programs.--The Department's reorganization has 
placed the farm credit programs under CFSA and is designed to 
facilitate improved coordination between the credit programs 
and CFSA's risk management, conservation, and commodity support 
programs. CFSA reviews applications, makes and collects loans, 
and provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. 
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) loans are 
appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and transferred to 
CFSA salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--Includes the program activities in direct 
support of the Federal crop insurance program as authorized by 
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994. The Act repealed ad hoc disaster 
authority and replaces disaster bills as the Federal response 
to emergencies involving widespread crop loss. Functions 
included are research and development, insurance service, 
compliance and emergency and noninsured assistance. Included 
are policy formulation, procedures, and regulations 
development. Reviews and evaluations are conducted for overall 
performance to ensure the actuarial soundness of the insurance 
program.
                         salaries and expenses

                                                                        
                                      Transfer from                     
                   Appropriation      program accts.    Total, CFSA, S&E
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.   \1\ $785,217,000  \1\ ($201,852,000                   
                                                    )  \1\ ($987,069,000
                                                                       )
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        811,771,000      (215,516,000)    (1,027,287,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........        805,888,000      (209,780,000)    (1,015,668,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......        +20,671,000       (+7,928,000)      (+28,599,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.         -5,883,000       (-5,736,000)      (-11,619,000)
                                                                        
\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
  Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for Federal
  Crop Insurance Corporation Administrative and Operating Expenses and  
  program account transfers to the Farmers Home Administration Salaries 
  and Expense account are excluded. Funds appropriated for administering
  certain conservation programs are included. Funds appropriated for the
  National Appeals function are included. Funds appropriated for the EEO
  counseling function are included.                                     

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Consolidated Farm Service 
Agency (CFSA) the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$805,888,000 and transfers from other accounts of $209,780,000, 
for a total program level of $1,015,668,000, an increase of 
$28,599,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $11,619,000 below the budget request. The 
increase includes funds for office consolidation costs and 
$11,795,000 for crop insurance activities for noninsured 
assistance programs and other services.
    The Committee supports the recent reforms to the crop 
insurance program; however, it is concerned with the seeming 
overlap of sales functions between CFSA personnel and private 
agents. A single deliverer of crop insurance products would be 
preferable, but it is questionable whether private insurance 
can provide the service required for all farmers and ranchers. 
To assure adequate coverage the Committee expects the CFSA, in 
consultation with affected Members of Congress, state 
agriculture officials, and principal producer organizations, 
will initiate a pilot program in crop year 1996 to withdraw 
delivery of catastrophic policies from CFSA county offices on a 
state-by-state basis and provide for delivery of all Federal 
crop insurance policies in the state exclusively through 
reinsured companies and private agents. The pilot program 
should evaluate the ability of the private sector to assume an 
exclusive delivery role for Federal crop insurance, both 
catastrophic and ``buy-up.'' CFSA should implement the pilot 
program in five states selected to provide an adequate test of 
a single delivery system. The Committee suggests that 
consideration be given to including at least one state where 
the majority of total Federal crop insurance policies were not 
sold in crop year 1995 by private sector firms or agents in 
order to evaluate the ability of the private sector to grow or 
mobilize resources to expand into such states in an orderly 
manner while maintaining high levels both of customer service 
and quality control.
    CFSA should submit an operational plan for the pilot 
program as soon as practicable to the appropriate committees of 
Congress. The plan should include criteria for selection of 
states as well as criteria for evaluating single delivery by 
private agents and reporting requirements.
    The Committee has serious concerns about the outdated and 
ineffective nature of the Federal peanut program. The General 
Accounting Office estimates that the program costs consumers 
between $314 million and $513 million in higher peanut prices 
each year as a result of the program, and the Congressional 
Research Service estimates that the program will cost the 
Federal Government $119.5 million in 1995. While the Committee 
has concerns about the accuracy of the GAO study, the Committee 
urges the Congress to seriously evaluate and reform the program 
during consideration of the Farm Bill later this year. If the 
Congress refuses to reassess this severly outdated program, the 
Committee will be forced to take action next year to move 
toward elimination of the program.

                         state mediation grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $3,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       3,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -1,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -1,000,000

    This program is authorized under title V of the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Grants are made to states 
which have been certified by CFSA as having an agricultural 
loan mediation program. Grants will be solely for operation and 
administration of the state's agricultural loan mediation 
program.

                          committee provisions

    For state mediation grants the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,000,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$1,000,000 below the budget request.

                        dairy indemnity program
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................        $100,000
Provided in the bill....................................         100,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        +100,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the dairy indemnity program the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $100,000, an increase of $100,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the 
budget request.

        outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
1995 appropriation......................................      $2,995,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       3,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -2,995,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    Due to fiscal constraints the Committee defers funding for 
the outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers 
program. This is $2,995,000 below the amount available for 
fiscal year 1995 and $3,000,000 less than the budget request.
                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency

                       Agriculture Credit Programs                      
                         [Dollars in thousands]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 1996                   
                           FY 1995 level      request       Recommended 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:                                                     
    Farm ownership:                                                     
        Direct..........       ($78,081)       ($70,000)       ($35,000)
        Guaranteed......       (540,674)       (540,687)       (550,000)
    Farm operating:                                                     
        Direct..........       (500,000)       (542,860)       (400,000)
        Unsubsidized                                                    
         guaranteed.....     (1,735,000)     (1,700,000)     (1,700,000)
        Subsidized                                                      
         guaranteed.....       (230,000)       (200,000)       (200,000)
    Emergency disaster..       (100,000)       (100,000)       (100,000)
    Soil and water:                                                     
        Direct..........  ..............         (2,898)  ..............
        Guaranteed......  ..............         (1,422)  ..............
    Indian tribe land                                                   
     acquisition........         (1,000)         (1,000)           (750)
    Credit sales of                                                     
     acquired property..  ..............        (45,000)        (22,500)
                         -----------------------------------------------
          Total, farm                                                   
           loans........     (3,184,755)     (3,203,867)     (3,008,250)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

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

                         estimated loan levels

1995 appropriation................................      ($3,184,755,000)
1996 budget estimate..............................       (3,203,867,000)
Provided in the bill..............................       (3,008,250,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............................        (-176,505,000)
    1996 budget estimate..........................        (-195,617,000)
                                                                        

    This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm 
ownership, farm operating, soil and water, recreation and 
emergency. In addition, the fund makes loans to associations 
for irrigation and drainage, grazing, recreation facilities, 
Indian tribe land acquisition, watershed protection, flood 
prevention, and resource conservation and development.

                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 1996 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are: $585,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$35,000,000 is for direct loans and $550,000,000 is for 
guaranteed loans; $2,300,000,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $400,000,000 is for direct loans, $200,000,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,700,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $750,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; $100,000,000 for emergency disaster loans; 
and $22,500,000 for credit sales of acquired property.
    The Committee recommends that due to the shortage of 
available funds the Department maintain direct ownership loans 
at the Department level and provide for high priority 
situations only.
       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                    Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                      subsidy            subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.        $93,169,000        $59,655,000       $243,766,000
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        131,474,000         56,031,000        227,258,000
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........         99,266,000         56,339,000        221,541,000
                                                                        


                                                                        
                    Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                      subsidy            subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......         +6,097,000         -3,316,000        -22,225,000
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.        -32,208,000           +308,000         -5,717,000
                                                                        

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions
    The following table reflects the costs of loan programs 
under Credit Reform:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 1995       FY 1996                
                                   enacted       request     Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                         
    Farm ownership:                                                     
        Direct................   $10,983,000   $16,373,000    $8,187,000
        Guaranteed............    20,870,000    19,681,000    20,019,000
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............    31,853,000    36,054,000    28,206,000
                               =========================================
    Farm operating:                                                     
        Direct................    56,555,000    74,209,000    54,680,000
        Guaranteed                                                      
         unsubsidized.........     9,360,000    18,360,000    18,360,000
        Guaranteed subsidized.    29,425,000    17,960,000    17,960,000
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............    95,340,000   110,529,000    91,000,000
                               =========================================
    Soil and water loans:                                               
        Direct................  ............       608,000  ............
        Guaranteed............  ............        30,000  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............  ............       638,000  ............
                               =========================================
    Indian tribe land                                                   
     acquisition..............       123,000       274,000       206,000
    Emergency disaster........    26,290,000    32,080,000    32,080,000
    Credit sales of acquired                                            
     property.................  ............     8,226,000     4,113,000
    Negative subsidies........      -782,000      -296,000  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies...   152,824,000   187,505,000   155,605,000
                               =========================================
ACIF expenses:                                                          
    Salaries and expenses.....   229,735,000   214,652,000   208,935,000
    Administrative expenses...    14,031,000    12,606,000    12,606,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, ACIF expenses....   243,766,000   227,258,000   221,541,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Corporations

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

                 administrative and operating expenses
1995 appropriation......................................     $68,884,000
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -68,884,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace 
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment 
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
    Under the new program, producers of insurable crops are 
eligible to receive a basic level of protection against 
catastrophic losses, which covers 50 percent of the normal 
yield at 60 percent of the expected price. The only cost to the 
producer is a processing fee of $50 per policy, or $200 for all 
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600 
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. 
Catastrophic (CAT) coverage is required for producers who 
participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain 
other farm programs. This coverage is available either through 
CFSA county offices or private insurance companies.
    The new program also provides additional ``buy-up'' 
coverage which producers may obtain from private insurance 
companies. Producers who purchase this coverage receive an 
additional subsidy on their CAT coverage on which the price 
guarantee is increased to 65 percent of the expected price, 
rather than 60 percent for stand alone CAT coverage. Further, 
the delivery costs for buy-up coverage are fully subsidized.
    The reform legislation also includes a noninsured 
assistance program (NAP) for producers of crops for which there 
is currently no insurance available. NAP was established to 
ensure that most producers of crops not yet insurable will have 
protection against crop catastrophes comparable to protection 
previously provided by ad hoc disaster assistance programs.

                          committee provisions

    Funding for this activity is included as part of the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency.

                federal crop insurance corporation fund
1995 appropriation......................................    $219,107,000
1996 budget estimate....................................\1\1,263,708,000
Provided in the bill....................................   1,263,708,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................  +1,044,601,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

\1\ The budget requests such sums as may be necessary to remain 
available until expended.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses 
which may include indemnity payments; loss adjustment; 
noninsured crop assistance payments; delivery expenses; 
program-related research and development; start-up costs for 
implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot projects, 
data processing improvements, public outreach; and related 
tasks and functions.
    All program costs for 1996, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

                          committee provisions

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, the same as the budget request.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

    The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under 
the laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United 
States, and was managed and operated in close affiliation with 
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was 
transferred to the Department of Agriculture by the President's 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established 
as an agency and instrumentality of the United States under a 
permanent Federal charter by Public Law 80-806, as amended. Its 
operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other 
specific legislation.
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; assisting in the maintenance 
of balance and adequate supplies of such commodities; and 
facilitating their orderly distribution. The Corporation also 
makes available materials and facilities required in connection 
with the production and marketing of such commodities.
    Activities of the Corporation are governed by the 
Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, and the charter of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. The Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Act) authorizes 
commodity and other programs for crop years 1991 through 1996.
    The 1990 Act requires support of 1991-1996 crops of sugar 
beets and sugarcane. Dual pricing and poundage quotas continue 
for peanuts, and acreage allotments continue to be suspended. 
The farmer-owned reserve program is continued for both wheat 
and feed grains.
    The 1990 Act continues the dual target price and loan rate 
system, providing price and income support protection to 
farmers. Target prices are used to establish a basis for 
deficiency payments to producers who participate in the wheat, 
feed grains, cotton, and rice programs. Deficiency payments for 
each of these commodities are required when the target price 
for the commodity exceeds the national average market price or 
the loan rate, whichever is higher.
    The 1990 Act continues the concept of marketing loans. 
Under certain circumstances, producers may repay nonrecourse 
commodity loans at less than the original loan rate. As an 
adjunct to the marketing loan, producers who choose not to 
place their crop under loan may still receive a loan deficiency 
payment, or the difference between the nominal loan rate and 
the lower repayment rate whenever marketing loans are in 
effect. The implementation of marketing loans is discretionary 
in the case of wheat, feed grains, and honey and is required 
for rice and upland cotton. Mandatory marketing loans have been 
added for soybeans, canola, flaxseed, mustard seed, rapeseed, 
and safflower and sunflower seeds.
    The 1990 Act continues, but modifies, the authority of the 
Secretary to require a reduction in the acreage planted for 
wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice if it is determined that 
supplies will otherwise be excessive. Specific programs are 
required when stocks are expected to exceed certain stocks-to-
use ratios. Maximum acreage for deficiency payments for each 
program crop will be 85 percent of the base, less the acreage 
required to be devoted to conserving uses. Producers may plant 
crops other than fruits and vegetables on up to 25 percent of a 
crop's acreage base without suffering a reduction in base.
    The 1990 Act makes minor changes in the method by which 
program yields and acreage bases are computed for a farm. 
Farmers who comply with acreage reduction requirements may also 
receive deficiency payments on other lands within the crop 
acreage base which are devoted to conserving use as long as 
they plant 50 percent or more of the permitted acreage to the 
program crop for upland cotton and rice. No minimum planting 
requirements apply to wheat and feed grains.
    The 1990 Act continues the conservation reserve program to 
assist owners and operators of highly erodible land in 
conserving and improving soil and water resources. The 1990 Act 
also targets additional participation to areas which are 
environmentally sensitive, including areas where agriculture 
adversely impacts water quality. Sodbuster and swampbuster 
provisions prevent farm program benefits to producers who place 
fragile lands in production.
    The 1990 Act provides for a minimum support price for milk 
of $10.10 per hundredweight. On January 1 of each year, the 
support price must be adjusted. If the surplus is estimated to 
be over 5 billion pounds milk equivalent, total solids basis, 
the support price is reduced by 20-50 cents. If the surplus is 
estimated to be less than 3.5 billion pounds, the support price 
is increased by at least 25 cents. The 1990 Act also calls for 
a report to Congress on milk inventory management programs, and 
beginning in calendar year 1992, a reduction will be made in 
the price received by producers to pay for the cost of surplus 
purchases in excess of 7 billion pounds.
    The Corporation is managed by a board of directors 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject 
to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the 
board. The board consists of six members, in addition to the 
Secretary, who are designated according to their positions in 
the Department of Agriculture.
    Personnel and facilities of the Consolidated Farm Service 
Agency, CFSA state and county committees, and other USDA 
agencies are used to carry out Corporation activities.
    The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to 
$30 billion. The fiscal year 1988 Appropriations Act, P.L. 100-
202, increased the statutory borrowing authority from $25 
billion to $30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal 
Treasury and may also be borrowed from private lending 
agencies.
    The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation are as follows:
    In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its 
annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the 
Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is 
authorized to use its general powers only to--
          (a) Support the price of agricultural commodities 
        through loans, purchases, payments, and other 
        operations.
          (b) Make available materials and facilities required 
        in connection with the production and marketing of 
        agricultural commodities.
          (c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to 
        other government agencies, foreign governments, and 
        domestic, foreign or international relief or 
        rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic 
        requirements.
          (d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or 
        disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
          (e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural 
        commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of 
        domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the 
        development of new and additional markets, marketing 
        facilities, and use for such commodities.
          (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural 
        commodities.
          (g) Carry out such other operations as the Congress 
        may specifically authorize or provide.

                 reimbursement for net realized losses
1995 appropriation...................................... $15,500,000,000
1996 budget estimate..................................\1\ 10,400,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................  10,400,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................  -5,100,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Amount proposed to be reimbursed through a current, indefinite 
appropriation.

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

                          committee provisions

    For reimbursement for net realized losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation the Committee provides $10,400,000,000, a 
decrease of $5,100,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 1995 and the same as the budget request.
    The Department of Agriculture is urged to implement an 
Export Enhancement program wheat flour initiative of no more 
than 200,000 metric tons to Vietnam.

       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

                (limitation on administrative expenses)
1995 appropriation......................................    ($5,000,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................     (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (5,000,000)
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee Provisions

    For CCC operations and maintenance for hazardous waste 
management the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000, 
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the 
same as the budget request.
                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
1995 appropriation......................................        $677,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 696,000
Provided in the bill....................................         677,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -19,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          Committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$677,000, the same as the amount available in fiscal year 1995 
and a decrease of $19,000 below the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was 
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Federal Crop 
Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS combines the authorities of 
the former Soil Conservation Service, as well as three natural 
resource conservation cost-share programs previously 
administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 
Service. Through the years, this Service, together with the 
agricultural conservation programs and over 2 million 
conservation district cooperatives, has been a major factor in 
holding down pollution. The Natural Resources Conservation 
Service works with conservation districts, watershed groups, 
and Federal and state agencies having related responsibilities 
in water resources, to provide for agricultural production on a 
sustained basis, and reduce damage caused by flood and 
sedimentation. The NRCS, with its dams, debris basins, and 
planned watersheds, provides technical advice to the 
agricultural conservation programs, where the Federal 
government pays about one-third of the cost, and, through these 
programs, has done perhaps more to hold down pollution than any 
other activity. These programs and water sewage systems in 
rural areas tend to hold pollution back from the areas of 
greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our cities.
    The watershed improvement programs of the Department of 
Agriculture were initiated by the authorization of planning and 
works of improvement on the original 11 major watersheds 
covered by the Flood Control Act of 1944. In 1953, the 
Committee provided $5,000,000 in the 1954 Appropriations Act, 
without a prior budget estimate, to authorize 62 small 
``pilot'' watershed projects to promote national interest in 
small upstream watershed control. These pilot projects were a 
tremendous success. The following year, the 83rd Congress 
enacted Public Law 566, which placed this program on a 
permanent basis. Under the authority of section 8 of this same 
Act, as amended, loans to local organizations were authorized 
to help defray a portion of the local share of the cost of 
watershed protection and flood prevention projects. These 
programs are now financed through three appropriations 
designated as ``river basin surveys and investigations,'' 
``watershed planning,'' and ``watershed and flood prevention 
operations.''

                        conservation operations
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $586,972,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     645,735,000
Provided in the bill....................................     629,986,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +43,014,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -15,749,000

\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the 
appeals staff and Civil Rights Enforcement are included. Funds 
transferred from CFSA for program administration are excluded. Amount 
does include transfers of $22,500,000 from CRP and $8,410,000 from WRP 
unobligated balances as provided for in P.L. 103-330.

    The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain 
agricultural productivity and protect and enhance the natural 
resource base. This is done through providing technical 
assistance to land users, communities, units of state and local 
government, and other Federal agencies in planning and 
implementing natural resources solutions to reduce erosion, 
improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and 
conserve wetlands, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, improve 
air quality, improve pasture and range conditions, reduce 
upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also 
provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL), wetlands 
(swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and conservation 
reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act 
as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et. seq.).

                          committee provisions

    Funds for the Natural Resources Conservation Service are 
for the continuation of the regular soil conservation practices 
and come within the provision of law that appropriated funds 
shall be used only for the purposes for which appropriated (31 
U.S.C. 1301).
    For conservation operations the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $629,986,000, an increase of $43,014,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$15,749,000 below the budget request. The total includes 
$5,000,000 increase for grazing lands conservation initiative. 
The total does not include funding for the Center of 
Excellence.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to continue to promote 
pastureland management and rotational grazing in central New 
York.
    The Committee provides $400,000 to continue work on the 
Hungry Canyon erosion control project in Iowa. NRCS should 
coordinate its work with the Loess Hills Development and 
Conservation Authority.
    The Committee provides $250,000 to continue work on the 
Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds in establishing 
best management practices to individual farmers to reduce the 
impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of pollution.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to continue work on the 
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment 
Control.
    The Committee is aware of and urges NRCS to continue its 
support for the Adams County, Iowa, Conservation Reserve 
Program Research Farm.
    The Committee provides $150,000 to complete the McKenzie 
River Basin project.
    The Committee provides $200,000 to continue work on the Mud 
Creek, Michigan irrigation project.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for whole farm planning in 
the New York City watershed.
    The Committee provides $200,000 for technical assistance to 
the Westchester County, New York Soil & Water Conservation 
District.
    The Committee recognizes the work of the Land Use Law 
Center at the Pace University School of Law in watershed 
protection and agricultural land and open-space conservation in 
Westchester County and the Lower Hudson region, and encourages 
the NRCS to utilize the expertise of the University in its 
efforts.

                     watershed surveys and planning
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $23,516,000
1996 budget estimate....................................  \1\ 18,752,000
Provided in the bill....................................      14,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -9,516,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -4,752,000

\1\ Includes amounts for River Basin Surveys and Investigations and 
Watershed Planning.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the watershed surveys and planning programs the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $14,000,000.
    The river basin surveys and investigations program conducts 
investigations and surveys of the watersheds of rivers and 
other waterways. The watershed planning program conducts 
investigations and surveys of watersheds and develops watershed 
work plans in response to requests made by sponsoring local 
organizations. The Committee has consolidated funding for these 
two programs into a single appropriation for watershed surveys 
and planning. The Committee believes that this will give the 
Department greater flexibility to meet the needs of its 
customers especially in these times of extremely tight fiscal 
constraints. The Committee expects the Department to prioritize 
requests and projects and fund only those that provide the 
greatest conservation return for the dollar.

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
1995 appropriation......................................     $70,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     100,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     100,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +30,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For watershed and flood prevention operations the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $100,000,000, an increase of 
$30,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following projects: Honey Creek, Indiana; Little Red 
River Watershed, White County, Arkansas; Upper North Bosque 
River Watershed, Texas; Lake Carlinville, Illinois; and the 
four pilot projects in North Florida related to dairy and 
poultry cleanup efforts.

                         conservation programs
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $59,142,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      49,206,000
Provided in the bill....................................      47,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -12,142,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -2,206,000


\1\ Includes amounts for Resource Conservation and Development, Great 
Plains Conservation Program, Forestry Incentives Program, and Colorado 
River Basin Salinity Control Program.

    Resource Conservation and Development.--The Natural 
Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility under 
provisions of section 102, title I of the Food and Agriculture 
Act of 1962, for developing overall work plans for resource 
conservation and development projects in cooperation with local 
sponsors; to help develop local programs of land conservation 
and utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in 
carrying out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and 
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting 
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project 
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to 
individual operators for establishing soil and water 
conservation practices.
    Great Plains Conservation Program.--The Great Plains 
conservation program was authorized under Public Law 84-1021, 
84th Congress (16 U.S.C. 590p), as amended. Public Law 91-118 
extended the Great Plains cost-share contracting authority to 
December 31, 1981. Public Law 96-263 extended the program until 
September 30, 1991. Public Law 101-624 extended the program 
until September 30, 2001. This program provides technical 
assistance and long-term cost sharing to land users in the 
counties of the Great Plains States plagued with recurring wind 
erosion problems. It is designed to provide needed protection 
and improvement of soil, water, plant, and wildlife resources 
of this vast agricultural area. Installation of complete 
conservation programs on entire operating units in the area 
helps to stabilize the local economy while assisting the 
individual producer. The work supplements other soil and water 
conservation programs and activities in counties designated by 
the Secretary. It is also coordinated with programs and 
objectives of locally managed conservation districts, state 
agencies, and community groups. This program contributes to 
total environmental improvement through reduction of wind and 
water erosion and sedimentation and abatement of agriculture-
related pollutants.
    Forestry Incentives Program.--The forestry incentives 
program is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 
Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), as amended by section 1214, 
title XII, of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990. Its purpose is to encourage the development, 
management, and protection of nonindustrial private forest 
lands. This program will be carried out by providing technical 
assistance and long-term cost sharing agreements with private 
landowners.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.--The 
Colorado River Basin salinity control program was established 
by section 101 of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320), as amended. The 
program began as a cooperative endeavor by the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil 
Conservation Service (SCS), and Extension Service (ES). The 
Secretary's Reorganization transferred the functions of this 
program solely to NRCS. The program is to assist landowners and 
others in the Colorado River Basin in establishing on-farm 
irrigation management systems and related lateral improvement 
measures to decrease the salt load and sedimentation level 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.

                          committee provisions

    For the resource conservation and development program, the 
great plains conservation program, the forestry incentives 
program, and the Colorado River basin salinity control program 
the committee provides an appropriation of $47,000,000.
    The Committee has consolidated funding for these four 
programs into a single appropriation. The Committee believes 
that this will give the Department greater flexibility to meet 
the needs of its customers especially in these times of 
extremely tight fiscal constraints. The Committee expects the 
Department to prioritize requests and projects and fund only 
those that provide the greatest conservation return for the 
dollar.

                        Wetlands Reserve Program
1995 appropriation......................................     $93,200,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     210,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      77,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -16,200,000
    1996 budget estimate................................    -133,000,000

    The wetlands reserve program (WRP) is authorized by title 
XIV, section 1438 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
Trade Act of 1990 (FACT Act), as amended by the 1993 Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act, which requires the Secretary to enroll not 
less than 330,000 acres by the end of calendar year 1995, and 
not less than 975,000 by the end of calendar year 2000. WRP is 
one component of the larger environmental conservation acreage 
reserve program (ECARP), which also includes the existing 
conservation reserve program (CRP). The primary objectives of 
the WRP are to preserve, protect, and restore wetlands, improve 
wildlife habitat, and protect migratory bird habitat. The 
Secretary of Agriculture, through designated county offices, 
uses program funds to enter into contracts with landowners who 
operate farmed or converted wetlands, farmed wetlands, or prior 
converted wetlands and adjoining land in CRP or riparian 
corridors. The contracts provide permanent easements or 
easements of 30 years or the maximum allowable under state law. 
Technical assistance is provided by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

                          committee provisions

    Funding is provided for an additional 100,000 acres to be 
added to the wetlands reserve program. The Committee strongly 
supports the restoration of our nation's wetlands. Since the 
program was first funded, close to 300,000 acres have been 
enrolled in the program. The Committee believes its actions of 
limiting the number of acres allowed into the program each year 
has resulted in a most cost-effective and environmentally 
beneficial program.

                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency

    The CFSA administers the following conservation programs:

                   Agricultural Conservation Program
1995 appropriation......................................    $100,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      50,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      75,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -25,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     +25,000,000

    This program is authorized by the provisions of sections 7 
to 16(a) inclusive, 16(f), and section 27 of the Soil 
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended. Its 
objectives include: (1) restoring and improving soil fertility; 
(2) reducing erosion caused by wind and water; and (3) 
conserving water on land. Cost sharing assistance is furnished 
to individual farmers and ranchers in the 50 States, Puerto 
Rico, and the Virgin Islands for carrying out approved, soil-
building and soil- and water-conserving practices on their 
farms. This assistance represents only a part of the cost of 
performing the practices. The farmer bears the balance of the 
cost and, in addition, supplies labor and management necessary 
to carry out the practices.
    Conservation practices under this program are developed 
initially at the local level by CFSA state and county 
committees, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 
Forest Service, representatives of the land-grant colleges, 
state conservation committees, and other state and Federal 
agricultural agencies also participate in these determinations.
    The recommendations of these groups are used as the basis 
to formulate joint recommendations to the Consolidated Farm 
Service Agency in Washington. From these recommendations, the 
various agencies of the Department in Washington develop and 
recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture a national program. 
State and local people then develop their local programs within 
the structure of the National program approved by the 
Secretary. No practices are adopted and put into effect in any 
state or county unless approved by the local conservation 
groups.
    In terms of accomplishments, this program has resulted in 
the planting of over 10.5 million acres of trees, the 
construction of over 2.7 million water impoundment structures, 
and the terracing of over 44.8 million acres of land. It has 
been a first line of protection through the years against 
floods, drought, dust storms, soil erosion, and other recurring 
onslaughts against natural resources. The following table from 
the Department of Agriculture indicates the significant 
contribution of the agricultural conservation program to the 
national conservation efforts:

       AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM--PRACTICES PERFORMED IN 1994 AND TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1936-1994       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Total      
                Practice                                Unit                Extent under 1994   accomplishments 
                                                                                 program           1936-1994    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water impoundment reservoirs             1,000 structures.................                 14              2,688
 constructed to reduce erosion,                                                                                 
 distribute grazing, conserve                                                                                   
 vegetative cover and wildlife, or                                                                              
 provide fire protection and other                                                                              
 agricultural uses.                                                                                             
Agricultural waste control and           1,000 structures.................                  4             \1\ 65
 diversion facilities.                                                                                          
Terraces constructed to reduce erosion,  1,000 acres......................                678             44,767
 conserve water, or prevent or abate                                                                            
 pollution.                                                                                                     
Stripcropping systems established to     1,000 acres......................                 70            116,842
 reduce wind or water erosion or to                                                                             
 prevent or abate pollution.                                                                                    
Trees or shrubs planted for forestry     1,000 acres......................                213             10,493
 purposes, erosion control or                                                                                   
 environmental enhancement.                                                                                     
Forest tree stands improved for          1,000 acres......................                 37              5,483
 forestry purposes, or environmental                                                                            
 enhancement.                                                                                                   
Wildlife conservation..................  1,000 acres......................                 36         \2\ 15,179
Sediment pollution-abatement structures  1,000 acres......................                451         \1\ 24,129
 or runoff control measures.                                                                                    
Conservation tillage including reduced   1,000 acres......................                527          \3\ 9,577
 tillage and no-till.                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From 1970.                                                                                                  
\2\ From 1962 with certain data estimated.                                                                      
\3\ From 1973.                                                                                                  

                          committee provisions

    For the agricultural conservation program the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $75,000,000, a decrease of 
$25,000,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
an increase of $25,000,000 above the budget request.
    Included within this amount is $11,000,000 for the water 
quality incentives program.
    Included in the funding for the water quality incentives 
program is $220,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 1995, to continue a demonstration project to reduce 
atrazine levels in Carlinville, Otter, and Hettick Lakes in 
Macoupin County, Illinois.
    Also included in the funding for the water quality 
incentives program is $150,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995, to continue to assist farmers 
surrounding Lake Otisco in central New York in implementing 
best management practices.

                     Emergency Conservation Program
1995 appropriation........................\1\...........................
1996 budget estimate....................................      $3,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

\1\ $23,000,000 transferred from funding appropriated to Watershed and 
Flood Prevention Operations by P.L. 103-211, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 1994.

    This appropriation funds the activities authorized by the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334). Under the 
program, the government shares a portion of the cost (up to 
80%) of carrying out approved practices to assist and encourage 
farmers to rehabilitate farmlands damaged by natural disasters.
    Funds are allocated for use only in those counties 
designated as disaster counties. Assistance is made available 
to treat new conservation problems which: (1) if not treated, 
will impair or endanger the land; (2) materially affect the 
productive capacity of the land; (3) represent damage which is 
unusual in character and except for wind erosion is not the 
type which would recur frequently in the same area, and (4) 
will be so costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance is or 
will be required to return the land to productive agricultural 
use.

                          committee provisions

    Due to fiscal constraints the Committee does not include 
funding for the emergency conservation program.

                      Conservation Reserve Program
1995 appropriation......................................  $1,743,274,000
1996 budget estimate....................................   1,926,370,000
Provided in the bill....................................   1,781,785,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +38,511,000
    1996 budget estimate................................    -144,585,000

    The conservation reserve program (CRP) authorized by the 
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by sections 1411-1499 of 
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
(FACT Act), was established as a voluntary program to help 
farmers prevent or control the critical soil erosion on highly 
erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland. Unchecked, 
soil erosion would reduce the nation's long-term capability to 
produce food and fiber and adversely impact water quality and 
wildfire resources.
    The FACT Act, as amended by the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993, requires that not less than 
38,000,000 acres be enrolled in CRP by the end of calendar year 
1995.
    The CRP is authorized in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and 
the Virgin Islands on all cropland meeting the eligibility 
criteria. Cropland is defined as land that has been annually 
tilled to produce an agricultural commodity, including 
sugarcane, other than orchards, vineyards, or ornamental 
planting or has been set aside in a production adjustment 
program in two of the five crop years immediately preceding 
1991 and is suitable for crop production. Alfalfa and other 
grasses and legumes in rotation are considered an agricultural 
commodity for CRP purposes.
    The CRP is administered under the general supervision of 
the Administrator, CFSA, and is carried out in the field by 
state and local CFSA committees. Technical assistance is 
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which 
determines eligibility of the land and assists farmers in 
preparing conservation plans. The Forest Service and 
cooperating state forestry agencies plan for tree planting and 
install planned practices involving trees.
    Under the program, farmers enter into a 10-year contract 
with USDA to take eligible land out of annual crop production 
and put it into permanent vegetative cover. The option of 15-
year contracts is offered to farmers willing to plant trees.
    Farmers decide what eligible cropland to offer for the 
reserve and bid what they would accept for an annual rental 
payment for the 10-year or 15-year period at the time of 
application. In addition, farmers receive one-time payments of 
50 percent of the eligible costs of establishing vegetative 
cover on the reserve acreage.

                          committee provisions

    For the conservation reserve program the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $1,781,785,000, an increase of $38,511,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $144,585,000 below the budget request. The amount provided 
is to make rental payments on the 36.4 million acres enrolled 
in the program and to cover the costs related to cost-sharing 
practices in establishing vegetative cover. No additional 
signups are proposed for fiscal year 1996.
      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service, Rural Business and Cooperative Development 
Service, and Rural Utilities Service and placed them under the 
oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and 
Community Development. These agencies deliver a variety of 
programs through a network of state, district, and county 
offices.
    In the 1930's and 1940's these agencies were primarily 
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these 
agencies have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout 
the United States providing loan and grant assistance for 
single family and multi-family housing, special housing needs, 
a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business 
development programs.
    Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
                              Development
1995 appropriation......................................        $568,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 586,000
Provided in the bill....................................         568,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................         -18,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this activity be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic 
and Community Development the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $568,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $18,000 below the budget 
request.

            Rural Housing and Community Development Service

     The Rural Housing and Community Development Service 
(RHCDS) was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform 
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated 
October 13, 1994 (Public Law 103-354). Its programs were 
previously administered by the Farmers Home Administration and 
the Rural Development Administration.
    The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of 
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and 
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and 
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives 
of the Service are to: (1) facilitate the economic 
revitalization of rural areas by providing direct and indirect 
economic benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural 
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all 
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to 
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically 
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while 
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs 
that work in partnership with state and local governments and 
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits 
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially 
guaranteed loans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 1996         FY 1996   
                           FY 1995 level      request        provision  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance                                                 
 Fund Program Account:                                                  
    Low-income family                                                   
     housing (sec. 502):                                                
        Direct..........    ($1,200,000)    ($1,200,000)      ($900,000)
        Unsubsidized                                                    
         guaranteed.....     (1,000,000)     (1,300,000)     (1,500,000)
    Rental housing (sec.                                                
     515)...............       (220,000)       (220,000)       (150,000)
    Housing repair (sec.                                                
     504)...............        (35,000)        (35,000)        (35,000)
    Farm labor (sec.                                                    
     514)...............        (15,915)        (16,482)        (15,000)
    Credit sales of                                                     
     acquired property..  ..............        (75,000)        (35,000)
    Site loans (sec.                                                    
     524)...............           (632)           (632)           (600)
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF.......     (2,471,547)     (2,847,114)     (2,635,600)
Self-help housing land                                                  
 development fund.......           (603)           (603)           (603)
                         ===============================================
Community Facility Loans                                                
 Program:                                                               
        Direct..........       (225,000)       (250,000)       (200,000)
        Guaranteed......        (75,000)       (100,000)        (75,000)
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural                                                      
       Community                                                        
       Facility Loans                                                   
       Program..........       (300,000)        (350,000       (275,000)
                         ===============================================
Rural Housing &                                                         
 Community Development                                                  
 Service Grants &                                                       
 Payments:                                                              
    Very low-income                                                     
     housing repair                                                     
     grants.............          24,900          24,900          24,900
    Rural housing for                                                   
     domestic labor.....          10,900          10,900          10,000
    Mutual and self-help                                                
     housing............          12,650          12,650          12,650
    Supervisory and                                                     
     technical                                                          
     assistance grants..  ..............           2,500  ..............
    Rural community fire                                                
     protection grants..           3,400  ..............           1,000
    Compensation for                                                    
     construction                                                       
     defects............             495             495             495
    Rural housing                                                       
     preservation grants          22,000          22,000          11,000
    Rental assistance...         523,008         571,483         535,900
    Rural housing                                                       
     performance                                                        
     partnerships                                                       
     program............  ..............          90,602  ..............
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural                                                      
       Housing &                                                        
       Community Grants                                                 
       & Payments.......         597,353         735,530         595,945
                         ===============================================
      Total, RHCDS Loans                                                
       and Grants.......     (3,369,503)     (3,933,247)     (3,507,148)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             rural housing performance partnerships program
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................     $90,602,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................     -90,602,000

    On May 2, 1995, the President sent to Congress amendments 
to the fiscal year 1996 appropriation request for the 
Department of Agriculture. With these amendments the 
Administration proposes to establish a rural development 
performance partnerships program which would consolidate 
funding from 14 rural development programs into three areas: 
housing, business development, and water and waste disposal.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee is not funding this program in fiscal year 
1996. It is funding the individual rural housing programs 
separately.
    Under the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, 
the program would consolidate the rural community facility 
insurance fund, both direct and guaranteed loans, the rural 
housing insurance fund, the rental assistance program and rural 
community fire protection grants.
    According to the Administration's proposal, funds would be 
sent to the states for allocation by state directors. Certain 
percentages of funds available nationwide could be reallocated 
by the Department and certain percentages of the funds 
available to state directors could be transferred among 
programs.
    The Committee believes that the rural development 
performance partnerships program may have considerable 
potential, particularly in this time of scarce budget 
resources. The Committee commends the Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture for seeking new ways to make rural 
development programs more effective.
    However, the proposal was submitted in May of 1995, well 
after the Committee heard testimony from the Administration and 
outside witnesses on the fiscal year 1996 proposed budget. The 
Committee is concerned that it has not had the opportunity to 
review the details of the operation of the rural development 
performance partnerships program. The Committee also has not 
had the opportunity to hear from community development 
organizations, state, local, and tribal officials and other 
interested parties who would be involved in the program.
    The Committee is providing funds for the water and waste 
disposal segment of the rural development performance 
partnerships program which consists of the rural water and 
waste disposal grants, solid waste management grants, and water 
and waste disposal facility loans.
    The Committee will closely monitor this program and 
consider the application of the rural development performance 
partnerships concept to other areas of rural development. The 
Committee invites comments from community development 
organizations on the Administration's proposal and on the 
operation of the water and waste disposal program.

              Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level

1995 loan level...................................      ($2,471,547,000)
1996 budget estimate..............................       (2,847,114,000)
Provided in the bill..............................       (2,635,600,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 loan level...............................        (+164,053,000)
    1996 budget estimate..........................        (-211,514,000)
                                                                        

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural 
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or 
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are 
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans 
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly and low-income persons in rural 
areas. These loans are repayable in not to exceed 50 years. 
Farm labor housing insured loans are made either to a farm 
owner or to a public or private nonprofit organization to 
provide modest living quarters and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Loan programs are limited to rural areas 
which include towns, villages, and other places of not more 
than 10,000 population, which are not part of an urban area. 
Loans may also be made in areas with a population in excess of 
10,000 but less than 20,000, if the area is not included in a 
standard metropolitan statistical area and has a serious lack 
of mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

                          committee provisions

    This program was proposed as part of the rural development 
performance partnerships program for fiscal year 1996.
    For the section 502 direct rural housing loan program, the 
Committee provides a level of $900,000,000, a decrease of 
$300,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level and $300,000,000 
below the budget request.
    For section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed loans, the 
Committee provides for an approximate level of $1,500,000,000, 
an increase of $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level 
and an increase of $200,000,000 above the budget request.
    For the section 515 multi-family rural rental housing 
program, the Committee provides for a level of $150,000,000, a 
decrease of $70,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level and a 
decrease of $70,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the authorization for the section 
515 program expired on September 30, 1994. The bill language 
prohibits any use of funds for the section 515 program until 
the program is authorized.
    The Committee is aware of only a few instances in which the 
cooperative housing authority in the section 515 program has 
been used. The Committee believes that more attention should be 
given to the use of the cooperative housing model. Use of 
section 515 to finance cooperative housing will increase the 
range of home ownership choices for low-income households in 
rural areas. Therefore, the Committee expects the Rural Housing 
and Community Development Service to give strong consideration 
to cooperative housing applications and to ensure that greater 
emphasis is placed on cooperative housing authority under 
section 515.
    Estimated loan levels for other programs provided by the 
Committee are: $35,000,000 for very low-income housing repair 
loans (section 504), the same level as provided in fiscal year 
1995 and the same as the budget request; $15,000,000 for farm 
labor housing loans (section 514), a decrease of $915,000 below 
the fiscal year 1995 level and $1,482,000 below the budget 
request; $600,000 for site loans, a decrease of $32,000 below 
the fiscal year 1995 level and $32,000 below the budget 
request; and $35,000,000 for the credit sales of acquired 
property, a decrease of $40,000,000 below the budget request. 
No funds were provided for this program in fiscal year 1995.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                    Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                      subsidy            subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.       $362,621,000        $17,200,000       $389,818,000
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        381,601,000          2,210,000        395,211,000
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........        299,867,000          2,550,000        390,211,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......        -62,754,000        -14,650,000           +393,000
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.        -81,734,000           +340,000         -5,000,000
                                                                        

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the cost of the loan programs 
under Credit Reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 1995 amount reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by OMB.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     FY 1995 enacted   FY 1996 request     House bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                         
    Single family                                                       
     (sec. 502):                                                        
        Direct....          $227,520          $251,880          $188,910
        Unsubsidiz                                                      
         ed                                                             
         guarantee                                                      
         d........            17,200             2,210             2,550
    Housing repair                                                      
     (sec. 504)...            11,690            14,193            14,193
    Farm labor                                                          
     (sec. 514)...             7,911             9,482             8,629
    Rental housing                                                      
     (sec. 515):                                                        
        Direct....           115,500            92,973            82,035
        Unsubsidiz                                                      
         ed                                                             
         guarantee                                                      
         d........           (1,000)  ................  ................
    Credit sales                                                        
     of acquired                                                        
     property.....  ................            13,073             6,100
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan                                                       
       subsidies..           379,821           383,811           302,417
RHIF expenses:                                                          
    Administrative                                                      
     expenses.....           389,818           395,211           390,211
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       rental assistance program
1995 appropriation......................................    $523,008,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     571,483,000
Provided in the bill....................................     535,900,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +12,892,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -35,583,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For rental assistance for both new (additional) and renewal 
units the Committee provides a program level $535,900,000, an 
increase of $12,892,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1995 and a decrease of $35,583,000 below the budget 
request. Of the amount provided, $530,000,000 is available for 
section 521 rental assistance and $5,900,000 is for the section 
502(c)(5)(D) program.
    This program was proposed as part of the rural development 
performance partnerships program for fiscal year 1996.

                self-help housing land development fund

                          estimated loan level
1995 loan level.........................................      ($603,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................       (603,000)
Provided in the bill....................................       (603,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    This fund is authorized by section 523(b)(1)(B) of the 
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. It is used as a revolving fund 
for making loans to public and private nonprofit organizations 
for the acquisition and development of land as building sites 
to be subdivided and sold to eligible families, nonprofit 
organization, and cooperatives.

                          committee provisions

    For loans for the self-help housing land development fund 
the Committee provides $603,000, the same loan level as fiscal 
year 1995 and the same loan level as the budget request.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

    The following table reflects the cost of the loan programs 
under Credit Reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 1995 amount reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by OMB.

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................            $11,000            $14,000
1996 budget estimates.............             31,000  .................
Provided in the bill..............             31,000  .................
Comparison:.......................                                      
    1995 appropriation............            +20,000            -14,000
    1996 budget estimates.........  .................  .................
                                                                        


    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                        community facility loans

                          estimated loan level
1995 loan level.........................................  ($300,000,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................   (350,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................   (275,000,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................   (-25,000,000)
    1996 budget estimate................................   (-75,000,000)

    This fund created by the Rural Development Act of 1972, 
finances a variety of rural community facilities.
    Community Facility Loans.--Loans are made to organizations, 
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated 
for profit and public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, 
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities 
providing essential services to rural residents. Such 
facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development such as fire and rescue services, health 
care, transportation, community, social, and cultural benefits. 
Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve rural 
residents of open country and rural towns and villages of not 
more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue 
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the 
majority of available funds.

                          committee provisions

    For community facility loans the Committee provides 
$275,000,000, a decrease of $25,000,000 below the fiscal year 
1995 level and a decrease of $75,000,000 below the budget 
request. This program was proposed as a part of the rural 
development performance partnerships program for fiscal year 
1996.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                    Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                      subsidy            subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.        $21,375,000         $3,728,000  .................
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....         43,600,000          4,740,000        $11,247,000
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........         34,880,000          3,555,000         $8,836,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......        +13,505,000           -173,000         +8,836,000
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.         -8,720,000         -1,185,000         -2,411,000
                                                                        

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                 Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants
1995 appropriation......................................     $24,900,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      24,900,000
Provided in the bill....................................      24,900,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    This grant program is authorized under section 504 of title 
V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The rural housing 
repair grant program is carried out by making grants to very 
low-income elderly owner-occupants to make necessary repairs to 
their homes in order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, 
and remove hazards to the health of the occupants, their 
families, or the community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $5,000 and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons, who are 62 years of age or older.

                          committee provisions

    For the very low-income housing repair grants for the 
elderly, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$24,900,000, the same amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
the same as the budget request.

                 Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor
1995 appropriation......................................     $10,900,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      10,900,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -900,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -900,000

    Financial assistance in the form of grants is authorized to 
public or private nonprofit organizations or other eligible 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor.
    Under section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service is authorized to 
share with states or other political subdivisions, public or 
private nonprofit organizations, or nonprofit organizations of 
farm workers, the cost of providing low-rent housing, basic 
household furnishings, and related facilities to be used by 
domestic farm laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or 
seasonal occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or 
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and 
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials. Grant 
assistance may not exceed 90 percent of the total development 
cost. Applicants furnish as much of the development cost as 
they can afford by using their own resources, by borrowing 
either directly from private sources, or by obtaining an 
insured loan under section 514 of the Housing Act. The 
applicant must agree to charge rentals which do not exceed 
amounts approved by the Secretary, maintain the housing at all 
times in a safe and sanitary condition, and give occupancy 
preference to domestic farm laborers.
    The obligations incurred by the applicant as a condition of 
the grant continue for 50 years from the date of the grant 
unless sooner terminated by the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service. Grant obligations are secured by a 
mortgage of the housing or other security. In the event of 
default, the Rural Housing and Community Development Service 
has the option to require repayment of the grant.

                          committee provisions

    For grants for rural housing for domestic farm labor the 
Committee provides an appropriation $10,000,000, a decrease of 
$900,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a 
decrease of $900,000 below the budget request.
                  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants
1995 appropriation......................................     $12,650,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      12,650,000
Provided in the bill....................................      12,650,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For mutual and self-help housing grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $12,650,000, the same amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget 
request.

              Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................      $2,500,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................      -2,500,000

    This program is authorized under section 509(f)(6) of the 
National Affordable Housing Act and section 525 of the Housing 
Act of 1949, as amended. The program allows grants to be made 
to nonprofit organizations to assist with rural housing 
preparation, development, and management in underserved and 
poor counties.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee has not provided funds for supervisory and 
technical assistance grants for fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
notes that substantial funds for this account are being carried 
over from previous years and that the Department's planned 
obligations for fiscal year 1996 from this program will not 
exceed available funds.

                 Rural Community Fire Protection Grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $3,400,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       3,400,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -2,400,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -2,400,000

    Rural community fire protection grants are authorized by 
section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. 
Grants are made to public bodies to organize, train, and equip 
local firefighting forces, including those of Indian tribes or 
other native groups, to prevent, control, and suppress fires 
threatening human lives, crops, livestock, farmsteads or other 
improvements, pastures, orchards, wildlife, rangeland, 
woodland, and other resources in rural areas.

                          committee provisions

    For rural community fire protection grants the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,000,000, a decrease of 
$2,400,000 below the fiscal year 1995 amount and a decrease of 
$2,400,000 below the budget request. This program was proposed 
as part of the rural development performance partnerships 
program for fiscal year 1996.

                 Compensation for Construction Defects
1995 appropriation......................................        $495,000
1996 budget estimate....................................         495,000
Provided in the bill....................................         495,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    This program is authorized under section 509(c) of the 
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The Secretary of Agriculture 
is authorized to make expenditures to correct structural 
defects, or to pay claims of owners arising from such defects 
on newly constructed dwellings purchased with RHCDS financial 
assistance. Claims will not be paid until provisions under the 
builder's warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for 
compensation for construction defects must be made within 
eighteen months of loan closing.

                          committee provisions

    For compensation for construction defects the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $495,000, the same amount 
available in fiscal year 1995 and the same as the budget 
request.

                   Rural Housing Preservation Grants
1995 appropriation......................................     $22,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      22,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      11,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -11,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -11,000,000

    Section 522 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
1983 authorized the Rural Housing and Community Development 
Service to administer a program of home repair directed at low- 
and very low-income people.
    The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the 
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the 
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible 
applicants compete on a state-by-state basis for grant funds. 
These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or 
grants to finance home repair. The program is administered by 
local grantees.

                          committee provisions

    For grants for rural housing preservation the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $11,000,000, a decrease of 
$11,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 amount and a decrease of 
$11,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that other programs exist under the 
management of the Rural Housing and Community Development 
Service such as very low-income housing repair grants and the 
rural housing insurance fund which can be used for 
rehabilitation of housing, and requests that RHCDS ensures that 
applicants are fully aware of alternative programs for their 
needs.

            Rural Housing and Community Development Service

                          salaries and expenses                         
                                                                        
                   Administrative                                       
                      Expenses          Transfers        Total expenses 
                                                                        
1995 levels....  .................     ($389,818,000)     ($389,818,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        $53,650,000      (393,359,000)      (447,009,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........         53,315,000      (385,976,000)      (439,291,000)
                                                                        


                          salaries and expenses                         
                                                                        
                   Administrative                                       
                      Expenses          Transfers        Total expenses 
                                                                        
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 levels        +53,315,000       (-3,842,000)      (+49,473,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.           -335,000       (-7,383,000)       (-7,718,000)
                                                                        

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Housing and Community Development Service 
including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans, 
and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; 
and to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in 
rural areas.
    Under Credit Reform administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts for the 
rural housing insurance fund and rural community facility 
loans. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will 
be for costs associated with grant programs.

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Housing and 
Community Development Service the Committee provides 
$439,291,000, an increase of $49,473,000 above the fiscal year 
1995 level and a decrease of $7,718,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee directs the Department to solicit competitive 
bids for operation of centralized servicing based upon Federal 
ownership of infrastructure, provided that the Department shall 
accept no bid which does not result in a cost savings to the 
taxpayers over five years in comparison to the costs, as 
determined by the General Accounting Office by March 1, 1996, 
which would be incurred if the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service continued to provide the services.
    The Committee is aware that planning is nearly complete for 
the Lake Gillespie expansion project and urges the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service to work with the City 
of Gillespie, Illinois, to develop a financial plan for this 
project.

           Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   FY 1995 level     FY 1996 request   FY 1996 provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business                                                          
 & Cooperative                                                          
 Development                                                            
 Service:                                                               
Rural Business                                                          
 and Industry                                                           
 Loans Program:                                                         
    Direct and                                                          
     Guaranteed         ($500,000)         ($800,000)         ($500,000)
Rural                                                                   
 Development                                                            
 Loan Fund.....           (88,038)           (90,000)           (60,000)
Rural Economic                                                          
 Development                                                            
 Loans.........           (12,865)           (14,091)           (12,865)
Alternative                                                             
 Agricultural                                                           
 Research and                                                           
 Commercializat                                                         
 ion...........  .................           (25,000)  .................
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total,                                                            
       RBCDS                                                            
       Loans...          (600,903)          (929,091)          (572,865)
                ========================================================
Grants:                                                                 
Rural Business                                                          
 Enterprise                                                             
 Grants........             47,500             48,000             45,000
Local Technical                                                         
 Assistance &                                                           
 Planning......              1,750              2,500  .................
Rural                                                                   
 Technology &                                                           
 Cooperative                                                            
 Development...              1,750              3,800              1,500
Alternative                                                             
 Agricultural                                                           
 Research and                                                           
 Commercializat                                                         
 ion...........              6,500              8,000              5,000
Rural Business                                                          
 Performance                                                            
 Partnerships                                                           
 Program.......  .................            112,315  .................
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total,                                                            
       RBCDS                                                            
       Grants..             57,500            174,615             51,500
                ========================================================
      Total,                                                            
       RBCDS                                                            
       Loans                                                            
       and                                                              
       Grants..          (658,403)        (1,103,706)          (624,365)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Rural Business and Industry Loans Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level
1995 loan level.........................................  ($500,000,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................   (800,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................   (500,000,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................  (-300,000,000)

    This fund created by the Rural Development Act of 1972, 
finances a variety of rural industrial development loans.
    Rural Industrialization Loans.--Makes loans for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of start-up costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

    For rural business and industry loans the Committee 
provides a loan level of $500,000,000, the same level provided 
in fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $300,000,000 below the 
budget request. The budget request proposed this program as 
part of the rural development performance partnerships program.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                                             Guaranteed   Administrative
                              Direct loans      loans        expenses   
                                                                        
1995 appropriation..........  ............    $4,750,000  ..............
1996 budget estimates.......    $3,505,000     6,825,000    $19,742,000 
Provided in the bill........  ............     6,437,000     14,868,000 
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation......  ............    +1,687,000    +14,868,000 
    1996 budget estimates...    -3,505,000      -388,000     -4,874,000 
                                                                        

              Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account

                          Estimated loan level
1995 loan level.........................................   ($88,038,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................    (90,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (60,000,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................   (-28,038,000)
    1996 budget estimate................................   (-30,000,000)

    The rural development loans program was originally 
authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 
88-452).
    The making of rural development loans by the Department of 
Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 99-425, the Human 
Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, 
community development corporations, private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, and others for the purpose of 
improving business, industry, community facilities, and 
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in 
rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                          committee provisions

    For the rural development loan fund program account the 
Committee provides a loan level of $60,000,000, a decrease of 
$28,038,000 from the fiscal year 1995 level and a decrease of 
$30,000,000 below the budget request. The budget request 
proposed this program as part of the rural development 
performance partnerships program.
    The Committee also provides an earmark of $4,323,000 for 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities instead of 
$6,484,000 as proposed in the budget request.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................        $46,000,000         $1,476,000
1996 budget estimates.............         53,685,000          2,961,000
Provided in the bill..............         35,790,000          1,792,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............        -10,210,000           +316,000
    1996 budget estimates.........        -17,895,000         -1,169,000
                                                                        

            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level
1995 loan level.........................................   ($12,865,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................    (14,091,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (12,865,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................    (-1,226,000)
    The rural economic development loans program was 
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L. 
100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 
by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural 
Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of 
credits payment program and created the rural economic 
development subaccount. The Administrator of RBCDS is 
authorized under the Act to utilize funds in this program to 
provide zero interest loans to electric and telecommunications 
borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural economic 
development and job creation projects, including funding for 
feasibility studies, start-up costs, and other reasonable 
expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic 
development.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the rural economic development loans program account 
the Committee provides a loan level of $12,865,000, the same 
level as provided in fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$1,226,000 below the budget request.
       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................         $3,077,000  .................
1996 budget estimates.............          4,085,000           $864,000
Provided in the bill..............          3,729,000            584,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............           +652,000           +584,000
    1996 budget estimates.........           -356,000           -280,000
                                                                        

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund

                         Cooperative Agreements
1995 appropriation......................................      $6,500,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       8,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       5,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -1,500,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

    The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Act of 1990, subtitle G of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
and Trade Act of 1990 was established to develop and produce 
marketable products other than food, feed, or traditional 
forest or fiber products. It will assist in researching, 
developing, commercializing, and marketing new nonfood, nonfeed 
uses for traditional and new agriculture commodities.

                          committee provisions

    For alternative agricultural research and commercialization 
(AARC) the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,000,000 
for the cooperative agreements program, a decrease of 
$1,500,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
a decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request.
    The May 1995 semiannual report to Congress by the USDA 
Inspector General identifies potential conflicts-of-interest in 
the decisions of AARC board members in six projects. According 
to the OIG, three board members had financial interests in 
companies receiving AARC assistance but there is no record that 
these board members either disclosed their interests or recused 
themselves from decisions on the projects. The OIG further 
reported that no board members have filed the financial 
disclosure statments required of special government employees.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to take immediate 
action to prevent conflicts-of-interest in decisions on AARC 
funding. The Committee further directs the Secretary to ensure 
that board members submit all necessary financial disclosure 
statements before participating in any decisions related to 
AARC activities.

                          Estimated Loan Level
1995 loan level.........................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................   ($25,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................   (-25,000,000)
                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee has not included any funds for the proposed 
new AARC direct loan program. The Committee supports the AARC 
program goals to develop and commercialize new commodities 
which will bring new products and economic benefits to rural 
areas. However, the Committee believes that the program must 
establish a longer record of success before any additional 
funding is made available. For the same reason, and because of 
the particularly tight budget situation for all agricultural 
programs, the Committee believes that it is not prudent to 
initiate the new direct lending program at this time.
       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................  .................  .................
1996 budget estimates.............         $7,138,000           $500,000
Provided in the bill..............  .................  .................
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............  .................  .................
    1996 budget estimates.........         -7,138,000           -500,000
                                                                        

                    rural business enterprise grants
1995 appropriation......................................     $47,500,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      48,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      45,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -2,500,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

    This program was authorized by the Rural Development Act of 
1972. Grants are made to public bodies and non-profit 
organizations to facilitate development of small and emerging 
business enterprises in rural areas, including the acquisition 
and development of land; the construction of buildings, plants, 
equipment, access streets and roads, parking areas, and utility 
extensions; refinancing fees; technical assistance; and startup 
operating costs and working capital.

                          committee provisions

    For rural business enterprise grants the Committee provides 
$45,000,000, a decrease of $2,500,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $3,000,000 
below the budget request. This program was proposed as part of 
the rural development performance partnerships program for 
fiscal year 1996.
    The bill contains language earmarking $500,000 for rural 
transportation systems technical assistance. The funds are 
designed to assist small rural communities in planning and 
developing transportation systems that promote a link between 
transportation and economic development initiatives.
    Sangamon State University and Lincoln Land Community 
College have joined together to construct and operate a state-
of-the-art learning and information system for colleges, 
schools, businesses, and homes in rural central Illinois. This 
project will deliver education and training programs to hard-
to-reach rural residents and communities. The Committee 
strongly supports and expects continued consideration of this 
project.
    The Department is expected to consider a request for 
continued support of a telecommunications demonstration project 
for Central New York. The project will promote a public-private 
partnership in region-wide information infrastructure planning 
and implementation, and will allow local officials to be 
involved in the planning and development of communications 
systems that will assist rural enterprise expansion.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider the request 
of the Arkansas Dairy Cooperative for assistance in the 
construction of a milk receiving and cheese processing plant.
    The Southern Kentucky Rural Economic Development Center in 
Somerset, Kentucky, is developing a rural technology facility 
in coordination with Kentucky Educational Television, a 
statewide public television network. The Committee expects the 
Department to consider continued funding for this project which 
will allow for equipment for transmission and production for 
this facility.
    The Committee is aware of a request for a grant from the 
town of Crothersville, Indiana, for an infrastructure 
improvement project and expects the Department to give 
consideration to this request.
    The LENOWISCO Planning District Commission, which serves 
three counties and the city of Norton in Virginia, has applied 
for a business incubator project. The Committee encourages the 
Department to consider funding for this program.
    The Montrose Area Industrial Development Agency has 
requested a grant for facilitation of an industrial park in 
Bridgewater Township, Pennsylvania. The Department is urged to 
consider this proposal.
    The Committee is aware of a request for a business 
incubator project for the enterprise zone in Sayre, 
Pennsylvania, and urges the Department to consider this 
proposal expeditiously.
    The Northeast Texas Rural Rail Transportation District is 
seeking a grant to purchase and maintain rail facilities which 
are vital to the area's economy. The Department should give 
strong consideration to this request.
    The Committee is aware of a grant request for the 
revitalization of the Golden West Flour Mill in Clovis, New 
Mexico. This is an important project for the farming 
communities of the area and the Committee urges the Department 
to give consideration to this project.
    Self-Help, North Carolina's community development credit 
union, has applied for a grant to expand its program of housing 
and community development in low-income areas. The Committee 
urges the Department to give consideration to this project.
    The Northern Economic Initiatives Corporation is requesting 
funds to support a technical assistance program for small 
businesses in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The Committee urges 
the Department to consider this request.

          rural technology and cooperative development grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $1,750,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       3,800,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,500,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -250,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -2,300,000

    This grant program is authorized by section 310(f) of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended by 
section 2347 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990. These grants are made available to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to fund the establishment and 
operation of centers for rural technology or cooperative 
development with their primary purpose being the improvement of 
economic conditions in rural areas. Funds are used to promote 
the development (through technological innovation, cooperative 
development, and adaptation of existing technology) and 
commercialization of new services and products that can be 
produced or provided in rural areas; new processes that can be 
utilized in the production of products in rural areas; and new 
enterprises that add value to on-farm production through 
processing or marketing. The Rural Business and Cooperative 
Development Service proposes to fund up to 75 percent of the 
project cost while requiring the applicant's contribution be at 
least 25 percent which must be cash from non-Federal sources.

                          committee provisions

    For the rural technology and cooperative development grants 
program the Committee provides $1,500,000, a decrease of 
$250,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level and a decrease of 
$2,300,000 below the budget request. This program was proposed 
as part of the rural development performance partnerships 
program for fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider the requests 
of cooperative groups for administration of projects funded by 
this program.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1996 request for rural 
technology and cooperative development grants included an 
earmark of $1,300,000 for the appropriate technology transfer 
for rural areas (ATTRA) program. ATTRA encourages the adoption 
of low-input and sustainable agriculture practices. The ATTRA 
program has previously been funded by the Department of the 
Interior.
    The Committee supports the objectives of the ATTRA program 
but regrets that due to tight fiscal constraints, it is not 
able to provide funding. The Committee encourages continued 
funding of the program through the Department of the Interior.

             local technical assistance and planning grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $1,750,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       2,500,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -1,750,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      -2,500,000

    This grant program is authorized by section 306(a)(11)(A) 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended 
by section 2341 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
Trade Act of 1990. It is designed to assist in the economic 
development of rural areas by providing technical assistance 
for business development and economic development planning. 
Grant funds may be used to identify and analyze business 
opportunities that would use local economic and human 
resources; provide technical assistance to existing or 
prospective rural entrepreneurs; establish business support 
centers and otherwise assist in the creation of new rural 
businesses; and conduct regional, community, and local economic 
development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development. RBCDS funds up to 75 percent of the project cost 
while requiring the applicant's contribution be at least 25 
percent which must be cash from non-Federal sources.

                          committee provisions

    Because of severe budget constraints, the Committee has not 
provided funding for the local technical assistance and 
planning grants program for fiscal year 1996. This program was 
proposed as part of the rural development performance 
partnerships program for fiscal year 1996.

            rural business performance partnerships program
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................    $112,315,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................    -112,315,000

    On May 2, 1995, the President sent to Congress amendments 
to the fiscal year 1996 appropriation request for the 
Department of Agriculture. With these amendments the 
Administration proposes to establish a rural development 
performance partnerships program which would consolidate 
funding from 14 rural development programs into three areas: 
housing, business development, and water and waste disposal.

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, 
the program would combine: the rural business and industry 
insurance fund program account, including both loans and 
grants; rural business enterprise grants, the rural technology 
and cooperative development grants, and local technical 
assistance and planning grants.
    According to the Administration's proposal, funds would be 
sent to the states for allocation by state directors. Certain 
percentages of funds available nationwide could be reallocated 
by the Department and certain percentages of the funds 
available to state directors could be transferred among 
programs.
    The Committee believes that the rural development 
performance partnerships program may have considerable 
potential, particularly in this time of scarce budget 
resources. The Committee commends the Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture for seeking new ways to make rural 
development programs more effective.
    However, the proposal was submitted in May, 1995, well 
after the Committee heard testimony from the Administration and 
outside witnesses on the fiscal year 1996 proposed budget. The 
Committee is concerned that it has not had the opportunity to 
review the details of the operation of the rural development 
performance partnerships program. The Committee also has not 
had the opportunity to hear from community development 
organizations, state, local and tribal officials, and other 
interested parties who would be involved in the program.
    The Committee is providing funds for the water and waste 
disposal segment of the rural development performance 
partnerships program which consists of the rural water and 
waste disposal grants, solid waste management grants, and water 
and waste disposal facility loans.
    The Committee will closely monitor this program and 
consider the application of the rural development performance 
partnerships concept to other areas of rural development. The 
Committee invites comments from community development 
organizations on the Administration's original proposal and on 
the operation of the water and waste disposal program.

           rural business and cooperative development service

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                        
                                      Transfer from                     
                   Appropriation      loan accounts     Total, RBCDS S&E
                                                                        
1995 levels....        $95,105,000       ($1,490,000)      ($96,595,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....          9,589,000       (23,394,000)       (32,983,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........          9,520,000       (17,115,000)       (26,635,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 levels        -85,585,000      (+15,625,000)      (-69,960,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.            -69,000       (-6,279,000)       (-6,348,000)
                                                                        

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Business and Cooperative Development 
Service including reviewing applications, making and collecting 
loans, and providing technical assistance and guidance to 
borrowers; and to assist in extending other Federal programs to 
people in rural areas.

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Business and 
Cooperative Development Service the Committee provides 
$26,635,000, a decrease of $69,960,000 below the fiscal year 
1995 level and $6,348,000 below the budget request.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      FY 1995 level    FY 1996 request     House bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural                                                                   
 electrification                                                        
 and telephone                                                          
 loans programs:                                                        
    Electric                                                            
     loans:                                                             
        5%........        ($100,000)        ($100,000)         ($90,000)
        Municipal.         (575,250)         (575,250)         (500,000)
        FFB.......         (300,000)         (400,000)         (300,000)
    Telephone                                                           
     loans:                                                             
        5%........          (75,000)          (75,000)          (70,000)
        Treasury                                                        
         Rate.....         (297,000)         (300,000)         (300,000)
        FFB.......         (120,000)         (120,000)         (120,000)
    Rural                                                               
     Telephone                                                          
     Bank Loans:                                                        
        Cost of                                                         
         Funds....         (175,000)  ................         (175,000)
                   -----------------------------------------------------
          Total,                                                        
           electri                                                      
           c &                                                          
           telepho                                                      
           ne                                                           
           loans..       (1,642,250)       (1,570,250)       (1,555,000)
Rural                                                                   
 telecommunication                                                      
 s partnership                                                          
 loans............  ................          (15,000)  ................
Rural water and                                                         
 waste disposal                                                         
 loans............         (905,523)  ................  ................
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RUS                                                        
       loans......       (2,547,773)       (1,585,250)       (1,555,000)
                   =====================================================
Grants:                                                                 
    Distance                                                            
     learning &                                                         
     medical link.            7,500            15,000             7,500 
    Rural water                                                         
     and waste                                                          
     disposal.....          500,000   ................  ................
    Solid waste                                                         
     management...            2,995   ................  ................
    Rural                                                               
     Development                                                        
     Performance                                                        
     Partnerships                                                       
     Program......  ................          785,183           562,000 
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RUS                                                        
       Grants.....          510,495           800,183           569,500 
                   =====================================================
      Total, RUS                                                        
       Loans and                                                        
       Grants.....       (3,058,268)       (2,385,433)       (2,124,500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            rural utilities performance partnerships program
1995 appropriation......................................................
1996 budget estimate....................................    $785,183,000
Provided in the bill....................................     562,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    +562,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................    -223,183,000

    On May 2, 1995, the President sent to Congress amendments 
to the fiscal year 1996 appropriation request for the 
Department of Agriculture. With these amendments the 
Administration proposes to establish a rural development 
performance partnerships program which would consolidate 
funding from 14 rural development programs into three areas: 
housing, business development, and water and waste disposal.
    According to the Administration's proposal, funds would be 
sent to the states for allocation by state directors. Certain 
percentages of funds available nationwide could be reallocated 
by the Department and certain percentages of the funds 
available to state directors could be transferred among 
programs.
    The Committee believes that the rural development 
performance partnerships program may have considerable 
potential, particularly in this time of scarce budget 
resources. The Committee commends the Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture for seeking new ways to make rural 
development programs more effective.
    However, the proposal was submitted in May of 1995, well 
after the Committee heard testimony from the Administration and 
outside witnesses on the fiscal year 1996 proposed budget. The 
Committee is concerned that it has not had the opportunity to 
review the details of the operation of the rural development 
performance partnerships program. The Committee also has not 
had the opportunity to hear from community development 
organizations, state, local, and tribal officials, and other 
interested parties who would be involved in the program.
    The Committee is providing funds for the water and waste 
disposal segment of the rural development performance 
partnerships initiative which consists of the rural water and 
waste disposal grants, solid waste management grants, and water 
and waste disposal facility loans.
    The Committee will closely monitor this program and 
consider the application of the rural development performance 
partnerships concept to other areas of rural development. The 
Committee invites comments from community development 
organizations on the Administration's original proposal and on 
the operation of the water and waste disposal program.

                          Committee provisions

    For the rural utility service performance partnership 
program, including the rural water and waste disposal insurance 
fund direct loans, rural and water waste disposal grants and 
solid waste management grants, and associated administrative 
expenses, the Committee provides $562,000,000, a decrease of 
$223,183,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee provides an earmark of $18,700,000 for water 
and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias along the 
United States-Mexico border and an earmark of $4,000,000 for 
the circuit rider program for technical assistance for rural 
water systems.
    The Ottawa County (Ohio) regional water project will serve 
nearly 20,000 year-round residents of eastern Ottawa County and 
more than 250,000 summer visitors. The Ottawa County proposal 
will allow it to consolidate small and outdated water treatment 
systems into one new water treatment plant and new water mains. 
The Committee encourages the Department to support this 
project.
    The Committee is aware of the significant water and waste 
disposal needs of the Mojave Water Association in California 
and expects the Department to give consideration to these 
needs.

          Rural Water and Waste Disposal Loans Program Account
1995 loan level.........................................  ($905,523,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................  (-905,523,000)
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 309A, and 310B 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
1921 et seq., as amended).
    Makes loans for water and waste disposal development costs. 
Development loans are made to associations, including 
corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and 
similar organizations generally designated as public or quasi-
public agencies, that propose projects for the development, 
storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of domestic 
water or the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in 
rural areas.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee is consolidating this program into the rural 
development performance partnerships program for fiscal year 
1996.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels
                                                     Direct loan subsidy
1995 appropriation......................................    $126,502,000
1996 budget estimates...................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    -126,502,000
    1996 budget estimates...............................................

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

       Rural Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account

                          Estimated loan level

1995 loan level....................................     ($1,467,250,000)
1996 budget estimate...............................      (1,570,250,000)
Provided in the bill...............................      (1,380,000,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 loan level................................        (-87,250,000)
    1996 budget estimate...........................       (-190,250,000)
                                                                        

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

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  FY 1995 enacted    FY 1996 request      Recommended   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Rural                                                              
Electrification                                                         
 and Telephone                                                          
 Loans Program                                                          
    Account:                                                            
Loan                                                                    
 authorizations                                                         
 :                                                                      
    Direct                                                              
     loans;                                                             
    Electric 5%      (100,000,000)      (100,000,000)       (90,000,000)
    Telephone                                                           
     5%........       (75,000,000)       (75,000,000)       (70,000,000)
                --------------------------------------------------------
          Subto                                                         
           tal.      (175,000,000)      (175,000,000)      (160,000,000)
                ========================================================
    Treasury                                                            
     rate:                                                              
     Telephone.      (297,000,000)      (300,000,000)      (300,000,000)
    Muni-rate:                                                          
     Electric..      (575,250,000)      (575,250,000)      (500,000,000)
    FFB loans:                                                          
        Electri                                                         
         c,                                                             
         regula                                                         
         r.....      (300,000,000)      (400,000,000)      (300,000,000)
        Telepho                                                         
         ne....      (120,000,000)      (120,000,000)      (120,000,000)
                --------------------------------------------------------
          Subto                                                         
           tal.      (420,000,000)      (520,000,000)      (420,000,000)
                ========================================================
          Total                                                         
           ,                                                            
           Loan                                                         
           auth                                                         
           oriz                                                         
           atio                                                         
           ns..    (1,467,250,000)    (1,570,250,000)    (1,380,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        FY 1995 enacted     FY 1996 request        Recommend    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Direct loans:                                                                                               
        Electric 5%.................................          9,703,000          23,520,000          21,168,000 
        Telephone 5%................................          5,497,000          14,955,000          13,958,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................         15,200,000          38,475,000          35,126,000 
                                                     ===========================================================
    Treasury rate:                                                                                              
        Telephone...................................             60,000              60,000              60,000 
    Muni-rate, electric.............................         46,020,000          62,300,000          54,150,000 
    FFB loans, regular electric.....................            450,000           3,360,000           2,520,000 
    Negative subsidy................................  ..................         -1,715,000   ..................
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies.........................         61,730,000         102,480,000          91,856,000 
                                                     ===========================================================
RETLP administrative expenses.......................         29,982,000          34,385,000          29,982,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telephone                                                                
       Loans Program Account........................         91,712,000         136,865,000         121,838,000 
      (Loan authorization)..........................     (1,467,250,000)     (1,570,250,000)     (1,380,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.
       Rural Telecommunications Partnership Loans Program Account

                          Estimated loan level

1995 loan level......................................  .................
1996 budget estimate.................................      ($15,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................  .................
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 loan level..................................  .................
    1996 budget estimate.............................      (-15,000,000)
                                                                        

    The rural telecommunications partnership loans program was 
established under the provisions of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. These loans enhance the 
business environment by providing facilities not normally 
available in rural areas but needed to compete in the global 
business environment. These loans improve job opportunities in 
rural areas and enhance public safety and provide efficient 
local government services to rural residents and business. 
Loans are available at low interest rates and at market rates 
to businesses, local governments, or public agencies in rural 
areas to fund facilities in which the loan recipients share 
telecommunications terminal equipment, computers, computer 
software, and computer hardware. This program improves 
telecommunication services in rural areas and provides access 
to advanced telecommunication services and computer networks to 
improve job opportunities and the business environment in rural 
areas.

                          committee provisions

    Due to budget constraints the Committee is not able to 
provide funds for this program. The fiscal year 1996 request 
was for a loan level of $15,000,000, requiring a direct subsidy 
of $594,000 and administrative expenses of $1,110,000. The 
program received no funds in fiscal year 1995.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................  .................  .................
1996 budget estimates.............           $594,000         $1,110,000
Provided in the bill..............  .................  .................
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............  .................  .................
    1996 budget estimates.........           -594,000         -1,110,000
                                                                        

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                  Rural Telephone Bank Program Account

                          Estimated loan level
1995 loan level.........................................  ($175,000,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................   (175,000,000)
Comparison:
    1995 loan level.....................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................  (+175,000,000)

    The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A 
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time 
after September 30, 1995, has been fully redeemed and retired. 
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the 
Office of General Counsel of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Telephone Bank direct loans the Committee 
provides a limitation of $175,000,000, the same level as 
provided in fiscal year 1995.
    The Administration proposed to begin privatization of the 
Rural Telephone Bank in fiscal year 1996. The Committee agrees 
that privatization should begin; however, the Administration 
has not consulted with authorizing and appropriations 
committees about this process concerning the effects of 
privatization of the Bank, its stockholders, and borrowers. 
Analyses of the full cost of privatization differ 
significantly.
    Therefore, bill language directs that no more than five 
percent of the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank be 
retired in fiscal year 1996. The Committee expects the 
Administration to conduct a complete study of the effects of 
privatization and to report the results of that study to the 
authorizing and appropriations committees.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................           $770,000         $8,794,000
1996 budget estimates.............  .................  .................
Provided in the bill..............            770,000          3,541,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............  .................         -5,253,000
    1996 budget estimates.........           +770,000         +3,541,000
                                                                        


    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               Distance Learning and Medical Link Grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $7,500,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      15,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       7,500,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................      -7,500,000

    The distance learning and medical link program was 
established by the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990 (104 
STAT. 4106, 7 U.S.C. 950a et seq.). This program is authorized 
in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
to provide incentives to improve the quality of phone services, 
to provide access to advanced telecommunications services and 
computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students.

                          committee provisions

    For the distance learning and medical link program the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $7,500,000, the same as 
the amount available in fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$7,500,000 below the budget request.
    Sangamon State University and Lincoln Land Community 
College have joined together to construct and operate a state-
of-the-art learning and information system for colleges, 
schools, businesses, and homes in rural Central Illinois. This 
project will deliver education and training programs to hard-
to-reach rural residents and communities. The Committee 
strongly supports and expects continued consideration of this 
project.
    The Southwest Virginia Education and Training Network has 
applied for funding which would provide critical educational 
programming to 16 school divisions in Russell and Wise 
Counties. The Committee urges the Department to consider this 
request.
    The Lake Superior Rural Health Information Network has 
requested a grant as part of an effort with the Duluth Clinic 
to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure for a health 
care system linking 43 facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan. The Department should consider the request for 
funding of this program.
    Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) has a strong, 
well-established agricultural program. The academic program 
includes a wide range of concentrations in the field of 
agriculture. Providing MTSU with a satellite uplink and 
downlink capability will allow the University's Agriculture 
Department to access and participate in the most up-to-date 
information. Specifically, this project would link MTSU with 
the National Agricultural Library which has the nation's most 
comprehensive collection of bibliographies, research data, and 
digests related to agriculture. The Committee encourages the 
Department to support this project.
    The Committee is aware of a pending application for a 
compressed video network that would integrate information 
networks of the University of Arkansas, extension programs and 
other state and local offices. The Committee urges the 
Department to take prompt action on this request.
    The Southern Kentucky Rural Economic Development Center in 
Somerset, Kentucky, is developing a rural technology facility 
in coordination with Kentucky Educational Television, a 
statewide public television network. The Committee expects the 
Department to consider continued funding for this project which 
will allow for equipment for transmission and production for 
this facility.

                 Rural Water and Waste Disposal Grants
1995 appropriation......................................    $500,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    -500,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    Makes grants for water and waste disposal development 
costs. Development grants are made to associations, including 
corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and 
similar organizations generally designated as public or quasi-
public agencies, that propose projects for development, 
storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of domestic 
water or the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in 
rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of the 
development cost of the projects and can supplement other funds 
borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay development costs.

                          committee provisions

    This Committee is consolidating this program into the rural 
development performance partnerships program for fiscal year 
1996.

                     Solid Waste Management Grants
1995 appropriation......................................      $2,995,000
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -2,995,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    This grant program is authorized under section 310B(b)(2) 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended. 
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning of 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee is consolidating this program into the rural 
development preformance partnerships program for fiscal year 
1996.
                        Rural Utilities Service

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                      Transfer from                     
                   Appropriation      loan accounts      Total, RUS S&E 
                                                                        
1995 levels....  .................      ($38,776,000)      ($38,776,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        $19,627,000       (53,603,000)       (73,230,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........         19,211,000       (46,464,000)       (65,675,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 levels        +19,211,000       (+7,688,000)      (+26,899,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
    estimates..           -416,000       (-7,139,000)       (-7,555,000)
                                                                        

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

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Utilities Service 
the Committee provides $65,675,000, an increase of $26,899,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $7,555,000 below the budget request.
                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
1995 appropriation......................................        $540,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     \1\ 553,000
Provided in the bill....................................         440,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................        -100,000
    1996 budget estimate................................        -113,000

\1\ The 1996 budget proposed that this office be funded in a single 
account under the Office of the Secretary.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $440,000, a decrease of $100,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $113,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee has included funding for the 
Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion under 
food program administration.

                       Food and Consumer Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service was established August 8, 
1969, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1659 and Supplement 1. The 
agency was renamed the Food and Consumer Service (FCS) pursuant 
to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6901). It 
represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and 
malnutrition in this country. Food assistance programs are 
intended to provide access to a nutritionally adequate diet for 
families and persons with low incomes, and encourage better 
eating patterns among the nation's children. These programs 
include:
    Child nutrition programs.--Federal assistance is provided 
to the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam for use 
in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children 
attending schools of high school grades or under, to children 
of preschool age in child care centers and homes, and to 
children in other institutions in order to improve the health 
and well-being of the nation's children, and broaden the 
markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the special 
milk program, assistance is provided to the states for making 
reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care 
institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to 
increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
    Food stamp program.--This program is aimed at making more 
effective use of the nation's food supply and at improving 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most 
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used 
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also 
includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized 
a block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which 
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a food 
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households.
    Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 
and children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health 
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants, 
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by 
providing food packages designed to supplement each 
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking. 
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health 
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other 
approved methods which a cooperating state health agency may 
select.
    Commodity supplemental food program (CSFP).--This program 
provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to age 
six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women with 
low incomes who reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
this program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons.
    Food donations programs for selected groups.--Nutritious 
agricultural commodities are provided to low-income persons 
living on or near Indian reservations who choose not to 
participate in the food stamp program; and to residents of the 
Pacific Territory of Palau and Federated States of Micronesia 
and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to 
distributing agencies to assist them in meeting administrative 
expenses incurred. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities 
are provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly. In 
addition, commodities will be provided to soup kitchens and 
food banks in fiscal year 1996.
    The emergency food assistance program (TEFAP).--This 
program provides commodities and grant funds to state agencies 
to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated 
commodities for needy individuals.
    Food program administration.--This account represents all 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Consumer Service. As of September 30, 1994, there were 1,790 
full-time permanent and 68 part-time and temporary employees in 
the agency. There were 607 in the Washington headquarters and 
1,251 in the field, which includes 844 in seven regional 
offices and the balance in six food stamp compliance offices, 
one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, five 
administrative review offices, and 84 field offices. This 
account also supports the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion.
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply 
(section 32).--This program includes the donation of 
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of 
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide 
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from 
general and continued hunger.

                        Child Nutrition Programs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1995 appropriation..................................  \1\ $7,451,351,000
1996 budget estimate................................       7,920,434,000
Provided in the bill................................       7,952,424,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation..............................        +501,073,000
    1996 budget estimate............................         +31,990,000
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriation has not been adjusted to reflect activities previously
  funded through the Special Milk Program ($18,089,000) and transfers of
  $12,123,000 to be funded by permanent appropriations pursuant to P.L. 
  103-448; $28,213,000 proposed to be funded in Nutrition Initiatives   
  for 1996; and $11,259,000 proposed to be funded in Food Program       
  Administration for 1996.                                              

    Working through state agencies, the Food and Consumer 
Service (FCS) provides Federal assistance in cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the 
school lunch program; the school breakfast program; and the 
summer food service and child and adult care food programs. In 
addition, the special milk program provides funding for milk 
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit 
child care centers and camps which have no other federally 
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either 
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level. 
FCS provides cash subsidies to state administered programs and 
directly administers the program in the states which have 
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation. Grants are also made for nutritional 
training and surveys and for state administrative expenses. 
Under current legislation, most of these payments are made on 
the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied 
to lunches and breakfasts actually served by the states.
    The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, contained a number of child nutrition 
provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorized and 
expanded SFSP to private, nonprofit organizations under certain 
conditions.
    School Breakfast Program (SBP).--Provided start-up grants 
for programs serving low-income children.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Provided funds 
for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless 
children and family day care homes in low-income areas.
    National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Mandated a 
unified system for compliance and accountability which would 
integrate Federal and state efforts and provide for increased 
Federal monitoring of SFSP operations. (2) Authorized the Food 
Service Management Institute to improve school food service 
operations.
    Nutrition Education and Training (NET).--Required 
demonstration projects and studies to examine a number of 
program issues and increased the authorization level.
    Through the special milk program, funds are provided to 
state agencies to reimburse eligible participants for all or 
part of the cost of fluid milk consumed. Under Public Law 97-
35, participation in the special milk program is restricted to 
schools and institutions that do not participate in another 
meal service program authorized by the Child Nutrition or 
School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 1986, based on 
authority in Public Law 99-661, children in split session 
kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do not have 
access to the meal service programs operating in those schools 
may participate in the program.

                          committee provisions

    For the child nutrition programs the Committee provides a 
total of $7,952,424,000, an increase of $501,073,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and an increase of 
$31,990,000 above the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $2,354,566,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$5,597,858,000 is by transfer from section 32.
    The Committee includes funding in this appropriation bill 
for nutrition education and training and the Food Service 
Management Institute instead of drawing funds directly from the 
General Treasury.
    The Committee provides for the child nutrition programs at 
the following annual rates:
                                                                  Amount
Child Nutrition Programs:
School lunch program....................................  $4,433,690,000
School breakfast program................................   1,160,454,000
Child and adult care food program.......................   1,657,493,000
Summer food service program.............................     280,303,000
Special milk program....................................      18,652,000
State administrative expenses...........................     101,607,000
Commodity procurement...................................     275,199,000
Nutrition education and training........................      10,000,000
School meals initiative.................................       5,000,000
Nutrition studies and surveys...........................       4,162,000
Coordinated review effort...............................       3,964,000
Food service management institute.......................       1,900,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................  $7,952,424,000
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
                                 (WIC)
1995 appropriation......................................  $3,470,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................   3,820,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................   3,729,807,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    +259,807,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -90,193,000

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant, 
breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and infants, and children 
up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
    The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, reauthorized and added a provision to the 
program as follows:
    Cost Containment Initiatives to Expand Participation.--(1) 
Required state agencies with a retail food delivery system to 
use a competitive bidding system or a system with equal savings 
for the procurement of infant formula. Savings are to be used 
to expand program participation. (2) Permitted states with an 
approved cost containment system to use first quarter funds to 
cover obligations incurred during the fourth quarter of the 
preceding fiscal year.
    The WIC farmers' market nutrition program (FMNP) is also 
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: 1) to improve the diets of WIC 
participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers' markets; and 2) to increase the awareness and use 
of farmers' markets by low-income households. Funds for the WIC 
program are provided by direct appropriation.

                          committee provisions

    For the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $3,729,807,000, an increase of $259,807,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $90,193,000 below the budget request.In addition, the 
Committee provides for the transfer of $4,000,000 from unobligated 
balances in the supervisory and technical assistance program.
    The Committee also includes two provisions which will 
result in additional funds being available for participation 
costs. The first provision provides that $20,000,000 from costs 
associated with nutrition services and administration be used 
for food benefits.
    The second provision states that up to $6,750,000 may be 
used to carry out the farmers' market nutrition program from 
funds not needed to maintain a case load level of 7.3 million. 
While the Committee is supportive of this program, it believes 
the first goal of the program is to maintain current 
participation levels.
    These actions, along with the anticipated $100,000,000 in 
carryover funds, are sufficient to maintain the year-end 
caseload of 7.3 million women, infants, and children in fiscal 
year 1996.
    The Committee provides for the same number of participants 
in fiscal year 1996 that were in the program at the end of 
fiscal year 1995. As current participants graduate out of the 
program, other eligible participants will move into the 
program.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with all 
states to reduce the amount of carryover funds to two percent. 
In testimony before the Committee, it was stated that two 
percent was an appropriate level.
    The Committee repeats bill language which prohibits 
administrative expenses from being used by any clinic providing 
WIC services if that clinic allows smoking within the space 
used to administer the program.
                           Food Stamp Program

1995 appropriation.................................  \1\ $28,830,710,000
1996 budget estimate...............................       29,762,887,000
Provided in the bill...............................       27,097,828,000
Comparison:........................................                     
    1995 appropriation.............................       -1,732,882,000
    1996 budget estimate...........................       -2,665,059,000
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriation of $28,830,710,000 has not been adjusted to reflect   
  transfers of $12,059,000 proposed to be funded in Nutrition           
  Initiatives for 1996 and $16,882,000 proposed to be funded in Food    
  Program Administration for 1996.                                      

    The food stamp program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance. The FACT Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-
624) reauthorized the food stamp program through fiscal year 
1995.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Consumer Service 
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which 
are updated annually.
    Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for 
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or 
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal 
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained 
by the U.S. Treasury Department. As the major alternative to 
the paper food stamp system, Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) 
is operating statewide in Maryland, in parts of Pennsylvania, 
Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, New Jersey, Texas, and Iowa, and 
is planned in other states.

                          Administrative Costs

    All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for 
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality 
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 
Federal government and the states on a 50-50 basis.
    In addition, state agencies which reduce quality control 
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, state agencies 
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the 
program on Indian reservations. The food stamp program is in 
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the 
District of Columbia.
    The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the 
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on 
states which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed 
target.

                          Other Program Costs

    Other program costs, which are borne entirely by the 
Federal government, include printing and transporting coupons 
to authorized state agencies and processing and destruction of 
redeemed coupons by Federal banks.
    The total cost of this program has greatly increased over 
past years. The following table indicates total program costs 
by fiscal year from 1962 to the present:
                       Food Stamp Appropriations
                          [Dollars in thousands]

 Fiscal year:                                           Budget authority
    1962................................................     \1\ $48,900
    1963................................................      \1\ 50,000
    1964................................................      \1\ 45,000
    1965................................................      \2\ 60,000
    1966................................................     \3\ 100,000
    1967................................................     \4\ 139,525
    1968................................................     \5\ 185,000
    1969................................................         280,000
    1970................................................         610,000
    1971................................................       1,679,000
    1972................................................       2,289,214
    1973................................................       2,500,000
    1974................................................       3,000,000
    1975................................................       4,874,600
    1976................................................       5,203,000
    1977................................................       5,514,000
    1978................................................       5,627,000
    1979................................................       6,679,200
    1980................................................       9,191,000
    1981................................................      11,480,000
    1982................................................      11,300,000
    1983................................................      13,005,141
    1984................................................      11,739,005
    1985................................................      11,768,856
    1986................................................      11,817,653
    1987................................................  \6\ 12,684,665
    1988................................................  \7\ 13,557,757
    1989................................................  \8\ 13,598,955
    1990................................................  \9\ 15,707,096
    1991................................................ \10\ 20,550,901
    1992................................................ \11\ 23,362,975
    1993................................................ \12\ 28,115,357
    1994................................................ \13\ 28,136,655
    1995................................................ \14\ 28,830,710

\1\ Pilot program with sec. 32 funding.
\2\ $35,000,000 of sec. 32 funds, $25,000,000 by direct appropriation.
\3\ Includes $2,000,000 reappropriation.
\4\ Includes $29,549,000 reappropriation.
\5\ Includes $23,200,000 reappropriation.
\6\ Includes $852,750,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\7\ Includes $879,250,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\8\ Includes $908,250,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\9\ Includes $936,750,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\10\ Includes $974,220,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and 
$1,500,000,000 in supplemental appropriations available until September 
30, 1992.
\11\ Includes $1,013,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\12\ Includes $1,051,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\13\ Includes $1,091,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\14\ Includes $1,143,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.

    Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a 
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives 
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a food 
assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, 
funding for this block grant program was included under the 
food stamp appropriation account.

                          committee provisions

    For the food stamp program the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $27,097,828,000, a decrease of $1,732,882,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $2,665,059,000 below the budget request. The Committee does 
not provide $2,500,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal 
year 1996. The Committee established a reserve when 
participation was rapidly increasing and Congress was having to 
pass annual food stamp supplementals. The Committee notes that 
participation is decreasing and, therefore, does not include a 
reserve in fiscal year 1996.
    For the Puerto Rico block grant for nutrition assistance 
the Committee includes $1,143,000,000, the same amount as 
available for fiscal year 1995 and the same amount as the 
budget request.
    The Committee does not provide for a transfer of funds to 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for the cattle 
tick eradication project. The Committee notes that Puerto Rico 
has the authority to continue to fund the project within 
available funds.
    The Committee is aware that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
does not allow Food and Drug Administration approved 
productivity enhancers for food production. Recently the 
Commonwealth agreed to some trial tests on productivity 
enhancers. The Committee expresses its interest in accelerating 
these pilot projects.
    The Committee commends the Department and the Office of the 
Inspector General for their commitment to eliminating fraud in 
the food stamp program. It further encourages the Department to 
implement the use of a photograph of the recipient on 
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. American taxpayers 
lose $1.8 billion each year on waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
food stamp program. The EBT program has been a step in the 
direction of reducing this fraud, but much more must be done. 
The Committee strongly urges the inclusion of photographs on 
EBT cards.

              Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\$183,154,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     229,889,000
Provided in the bill....................................     215,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     +31,846,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -14,889,000

\1\ Does not include $40,000,000 for soup kitchens.

    The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 612c (note)), provides for a directly funded 
food distribution program for low-income persons residing on or 
near Indian reservations who choose not to participate in the 
food stamp program and to needy individuals in the Pacific 
Island Territories. This program attempts to alleviate hunger 
and malnutrition in low-income households by providing 
nutritious agricultural commodities to eligible persons. This 
program also funds commodity support for elderly feeding 
programs under titles III and IV of the Older Americans Act of 
1965. Donated foods are used in meals served in senior citizens 
centers or similar settings. States may elect cash-in-lieu of 
commodities.
    The 1990 FACT Act reauthorized through fiscal year 1995 the 
food distribution program on Indian reservations.
                          committee provisions

    For the food donations programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $215,000,000 an increase of $31,846,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$14,889,000 below the budget request. Included in the amount is 
$150,000,000 for the nutrition program for the elderly and 
$65,000,000 for the food distribution program on Indian 
reservations. Funding for the purchase of additional 
commodities for soup kitchens and food banks is included under 
the commodity assistance program.
    Low-income persons residing on or near Indian reservations 
have the option to participate in the food stamp program or 
receive commodities through the food distribution program on 
Indian reservations. The Committee directs the Department to 
work with Indian reservations to begin converting this 
population to the food stamp program only. The Committee is 
aware that for some reservations this may not be feasible due 
to their locations.

                      commodity assistance program
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\$189,500,000
1996 budget estimate....................................  \1\166,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     168,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -21,500,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      +2,000,000

\1\ Includes funding for soup kitchens, the commodity supplemental food 
program, and TEFAP.

    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The commodity 
supplemental food program (CSFP) provides supplemental food to 
infants and children up to age six, and to pregnant, 
postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low incomes, and 
reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program 
operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income 
elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    The 1990 FACT Act (P.L. 101-624) reauthorized the program 
through fiscal year 1995. This law increased administrative 
funding from 15 percent to 20 percent of funds appropriated, 
discontinued administrative funding based on the value of 
donated commodities, and allowed establishment of elderly-only 
programs.
    In addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4 million 
pounds of non-fat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese to 
the program annually, subject to availability.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).--Title II of 
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and 
appropriated funds for costs of intrastate storage and 
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. Subsequent 
authorizations have continued the program at the $50,000,000 
level. In fiscal year 1995, $65,000,000 was appropriated for 
the purchase and distribution of commodities as authorized by 
section 104 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988.
    Funds are administered by the Food and Consumer Service 
through grants to state agencies which operate commodity 
distribution programs. Allocation of the funds to states is 
based on a formula which considers the states' unemployment 
rate and the number of persons with incomes below the poverty 
level.
    In fiscal year 1994, $48.4 million worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Donations will continue in fiscal year 1995. Precise levels 
will depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and 
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 1995, $40.0 
million was used to help state and local authorities with the 
storage and distribution costs of providing surplus commodities 
to needy individuals.
    The 1990 FACT Act reauthorized administrative funding 
through fiscal year 1995 and allowed these funds to be used for 
local repackaging and further processing of commodities. The 
law required that CCC bonus commodities be distributed through 
TEFAP, if available to other programs, and reauthorized funding 
for the purchase of TEFAP commodities.
    Soup Kitchens.--In fiscal year 1995, $40,000,000 was 
appropriated for the purchase and distribution of commodities 
to soup kitchens and food banks as authorized by section 110 of 
the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988.
    The 1990 FACT Act reauthorized through fiscal year 1995 
commodities for soup kitchens. The law further authorized the 
distribution of soup kitchen commodities to food pantries.

                          committee provisions

    For the commodity supplemental food program, soup kitchens, 
and the emergency food assistance program the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $168,000,000, a decrease of 
$21,500,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and 
an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee has consolidated funding for these three 
programs into a single appropriation. The Committee believes 
that this will give the Department greater flexibility to meet 
the needs of this constituency especially in these times of 
extremely tight fiscal constraints. The Committee does not 
agree with the Department's proposal to eliminate commodity 
purchases for the emergency food assistance program, and this 
program should not be singled out for funding elimination.

                         Nutrition Initiatives
1995 appropriation......................................           (\1\)
1996 budget estimate....................................     $49,744,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................     -49,744,000

\1\ On a comparable basis, the 1995 appropriation would be $42,490,000, 
including transfers of $12,059,000 from the Food Stamp Program; 
$28,213,000 from the Child Nutrition Programs; and $2,218,000 from the 
Agricultural Research Service.

    This program establishes nutrition education as an integral 
component of all food assistance programs and supports the 
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. This account also 
funds research activities supporting the program performance 
and effectiveness of the food stamp program and child nutrition 
programs and several other special initiatives.
    Pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
6901), the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion was 
created for the purpose of designing and disseminating 
nutrition education and information to all American consumers.
    Research supporting the food stamp program is authorized in 
section 17 of the Food Stamp Act and research for the child 
nutrition program is authorized by section 6(a)(3) of the 
National School Lunch Act.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee does not concur with the Administration's 
proposal to shift mandatory programs of child nutrition and 
food stamps to create a new discretionary program. The 
Committee believes these programs are in support of mandatory 
programs and should be funded as such.

                      Food Program Administration
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\$106,465,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     141,360,000
Provided in the bill....................................     108,323,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      +1,858,000
    1996 budget estimate................................     -33,037,000

\1\ Appropriation has not been adjusted to reflect proposed transfers of 
$16,882,000 from the Food Stamp Program and $11,259,000 from the Child 
Nutrition Programs.

    The food program administration appropriation provides for 
all of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Consumer 
Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; special 
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
(WIC); commodity supplemental food program; food stamp program; 
food donations programs for selected groups; and the emergency 
food assistance program.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the food assistance 
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the 
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to state agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the states and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program 
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support 
functions.

                          committee provisions

    For food program administration the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $108,323,000, an increase of $1,858,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$33,037,000 below the budget request. Included in this amount 
is $2,218,000 for the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion.
            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                                                                        
                                      Transfer from                     
                   Appropriation      loan accounts        Total, FAS   
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.   \1\ $108,880,000       ($9,131,000)     ($118,011,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....        120,201,000       ( 9,318,000)      (129,519,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........        114,547,000        (8,973,000)      (123,520,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......         +5,667,000         (-158,000)       (+5,509,000)
    1995 budget                                                         
     estimates.         -5,654,000         (-345,000)       (-5,999,000)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ The 1995 appropriation is not adjusted to reflect the Department of 
  Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Funds appropriated for the EEO
  counseling function are included.                                     

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $114,547,000 and transfers of $8,973,000, 
for a total program level of $123,520,000. This is an increase 
of $5,509,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 
and a decrease of $5,999,000 below the budget request.
    Due to fiscal constraints the Committee is unable to 
provide the requested increases. Within the funds available, 
the Foreign Agricultural Service should significantly downsize 
the operations of the Office of International Cooperation and 
Development and reduce the size of the trade negotiations 
office. With the completion of NAFTA and GATT, these offices 
are overstaffed. The Committee directs FAS to continue the 
foreign market development program (cooperator program) at the 
same level as fiscal year 1995.

                     scientific activities overseas

                       (foreign currency program)

                (limitation on administrative expenses)
1995 level..............................................    ($1,062,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 level..........................................    (-1,062,000)
    1995 budget estimate................................................

    In fiscal year 1958, the Department initiated a research 
program abroad utilizing foreign currencies generated by the 
sale of surplus agricultural commodities under title I of 
Public Law 480. Originally confined to market development 
research authorized by section 104(b)(1) of Public Law 480, as 
amended, the program was subsequently expanded to include 
agricultural and forestry research under section 101(b)(3) of 
Public Law 480, as amended. It now involves work in the 
following general areas: farm research, utilization research, 
marketing research, forestry research, agricultural economics, 
and human nutrition research.
                          committee provisions

    The Committee does not provide a limitation on 
administrative expenses for scientific activities overseas.

                             Public Law 480

                 public law 480 title i program account

                                                                        
                                                         Administrative 
                    Credit level       Loan subsidy         expenses    
                                                                        
1995 level.....  \1\ ($291,342,000                                      
                                 )   \2\ $236,162,000         $2,461,000
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates.....      (161,540,000)        131,833,000          1,750,000
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........      (291,342,000)        236,162,000          1,750,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 level.  .................  .................           -711,000
    1995 budget                                                         
     estimates.     (+129,802,000)       +104,329,000  .................
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes proposed rescission of $54,114,000.                        
\2\ Excludes proposed rescission of $43,865,000.                        

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 1996 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries for dollars on credit terms, or for local currencies 
(including for local currencies on credit terms) for use under 
section 104; and for furnishing commodities to carry out the 
Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended (title I).--Title I 
of the legislation authorizes financing of sales to developing 
countries for local currencies and for dollars on credit terms. 
Sales for dollars or local currency may be made to foreign 
governments. The legislation provides for repayment terms 
either in local currencies or U.S. dollars on credit terms of 
up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 7 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.

                  public law 480 title i grant account
1995 appropriation...................................... \1\ $29,000,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      16,417,000
Provided in the bill....................................      25,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -4,000,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      +8,583,000

\1\ Excludes proposed rescission of $6,135,000.

    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
                 Public Law 480 Title II Grant Account
1995 appropriation......................................    $821,100,000
1996 budget estimate....................................     795,703,000
Provided in the bill....................................     821,100,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................     +25,397,000

    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for non-emergencies through 
public and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.

                 Public Law 480 Title III Grant Account
1995 appropriation......................................\1\ $157,442,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      50,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      50,000,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................    -107,442,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Excludes proposed rescission of $92,500,000.

    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy 
levels, and administrative costs for all P.L. 480 programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                        FY 1995 enacted     FY 1996 request       provisions    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:                                                                                 
    Title I--Credit sales:                                                                                      
        Program level...............................      ($320,342,000)      ($177,957,000)      ($316,342,000)
            Direct loans............................       (291,342,000)       (161,540,000)       (291,342,000)
            Ocean freight differential..............         29,000,000          16,417,000          25,000,000 
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:                                                               
        Program level...............................       (821,100,000)       (795,703,000)       (821,100,000)
        Appropriation...............................        821,100,000         795,703,000         821,100,000 
    Title III--Commodity grants:                                                                                
        Program level...............................       (157,442,000)        (50,000,000)        (50,000,000)
        Appropriation...............................        157,442,000          50,000,000          50,000,000 
    Loan subsidies..................................        236,162,000         131,833,000         236,162,000 
    Debt restructuring..............................  ..................          1,500,000   ..................
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                      
        General Sales Manager.......................          1,425,000           1,005,000           1,005,000 
        CFSA........................................          1,036,000             745,000             745,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................          2,461,000           1,750,000           1,750,000 
                                                     ===========================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:                                                                                
            Program level...........................     (1,298,884,000)     (1,023,660,000)     (1,187,442,000)
            Appropriation...........................      1,246,165,000         997,203,000       1,134,012,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                                                                        
                                     Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1995 appropriation................       $394,393,000         $3,381,000
1996 budget estimates.............        374,347,000          3,745,000
Provided in the bill..............        374,347,000          3,381,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1995 appropriation............        -20,046,000  .................
    1996 budget estimates.........  .................           -364,000
                                                                        

    Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided 
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to 
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program 
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. 
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended, requires that 
not less than $5 billion is GSM-102 guarantees be made 
available annually. The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-
term credit with repayment terms of three to ten years. Not 
less than $500 million in GSM-103 guarantees are required to be 
made available annually.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan 
guarantees committed in 1996 and beyond, as well as for 
administrative expenses.
    Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is 
provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not 
by annual appropriation.
      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                Department of Health and Human Services

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                        
                   Appropriation    User fee accounts        Total      
                                                                        
1995                                                                    
 appropriation.       $819,971,000      ($85,923,000)     ($905,894,000)
1996 budget                                                             
 estimates \1\.        828,999,000      (136,463,000)      (965,462,000)
Provided in the                                                         
 bill..........        819,971,000       (97,723,000)      (917,694,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1995                                                                
     appropriat                                                         
     ion.......  .................      (+11,800,000)      (+11,800,000)
    1996 budget                                                         
     estimates.         -9,028,000      (-38,740,000)      (-47,768,000)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ The President's budget request proposed legislative changes that    
  would have allowed the FDA to collect $38,740,000 in currently        
  unauthorized user fees.                                               

    The programs of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are 
designed to achieve a single overall objective: consumer 
protection. FDA's mission is to ensure that: (1) food is safe, 
pure, and wholesome; (2) human and animal drugs, biological 
products, and medical devices are safe and effective; and (3) 
radiological products and use procedures do not result in 
unnecessary exposure to radiation.
    To accomplish its mission, FDA: (1) sets food and product 
standards; (2) evaluates the safety and efficacy of new drugs 
and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conducts and 
sponsors research studies to detect health hazards and 
violations of laws or regulations, to improve the agency's base 
of scientific knowledge in toxicology and other disciplines, 
and to promote development of orphan products; (4) informs 
business firms and consumers about FDA-related topics; (5) 
works with state and local agencies to develop programs that 
will supplement or complement those of FDA; (6) maintains 
surveillance over foods, drugs, medical devices and electronic 
products to ensure that they are safe, effective, and honestly 
labeled; and (7) takes legal action where necessary to remove 
violative products from the marketplace and to prosecute firms 
or individuals that violate the law.
    Through its regulation of food, FDA protects and promotes 
the health of nearly every American by monitoring the food 
industry to safeguard against contamination by dangerous 
bacteria and molds and other natural and man-made toxins, and 
by regulating the safe use of veterinary drugs and feed 
additives to protect consumers against hazardous drug residues 
or by-products that may remain in meat. FDA also assures that 
consumers are not victimized by adulteration; promotes 
informative labeling to assist consumers in choosing foods; and 
examines imported foods to see that they meet the same 
standards as domestic products. FDA also provides leadership 
and assistance to the states and local authorities in 
conducting their responsibilities.

                          committee provisions

    For the Food and Drug Administration the Committee provides 
a program level of $917,694,000, an increase of $11,800,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease 
of $47,768,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
includes increases for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 
$5,300,000 and estimated increases for the Mammography Quality 
Clinic Act of $6,500,000. The Committee does not concur with 
the request to provide authorization to establish new user fees 
for the medical device program and food inspection user fees on 
imported products.
    The Committee is concerned about the continued reports of 
overstaffing at the Commissioner's office level. In response to 
hearing questions, the FDA indicated it would assign 1,150 
full-time equivalents to the Office of the Commissioner. No 
explanation was provided to justify such a number. For future 
budget justifications the Committee expects better accounting 
for FTE's and costs associated with the Offices of the 
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Associate Commissioners; 
the Office of Program Management; and the Office of Criminal 
Investigations. Information should include both direct and 
indirect costs associated with detailed positions.
    The Committee has become very concerned about the 
relationship between the medical device manufacturers and the 
Food and Drug Administration. The number of reported complaints 
and anecdotal problems has become increasingly larger. The 
Committee expects the Commissioner to take immediate steps to 
reduce activities in lower priority areas and redirect FTE's 
into the medical device approval process. The Commissioner 
should closely monitor travel, publications, congressional 
affairs, and other overhead costs and direct savings into 
higher priorities, such as the medical device area and food 
additive approvals.
    FDA shall respond to congressional requests for information 
about its activities in a prompt and complete manner. If FDA 
cannot release requested information because of any legal 
restriction, the agency shall make that fact known to the 
office making the request at the earliest possible time.
    The Fiscal Year 1995 Commerce, Justice and State 
Appropriation conference report approved a transfer of $500,000 
in Saltonstall-Kennedy funds for a comprehensive education 
program for at-risk consumers who consume raw molluscan 
shellfish. The Conference report directed that these funds be 
used for a multi-year program that includes industry 
participation. The Committee is concerned about some of the 
methods that FDA has developed in expending these funds and 
expects the FDA to ensure active participation from the 
affected shellfish industry in the development and review of 
these education programs. A program focused on educating those 
at risk of the proper consumption practices with raw molluscan 
shellfish should continue. The Committee also supports 
developing practical methods to significantly reduce or 
eliminate the risks of vibrio volnificus in raw molluscan 
shellfish by expending research funds to assist in the 
development of these methods. The Committee directs FDA to 
provide $250,000 in additional funds in fiscal year 1996 to 
continue and enhance the education program and begin these 
research efforts. Of this amount, $100,000 will be used for 
research. The education and research funds shall be available 
to state agencies, academic institutions, and the private 
sector to carry out these programs. The FDA should not expend 
more than 5% of these funds for the administration of these 
programs.
    The regulations dealing with standards of quality and 
identity for bottled water, which had been pending for over a 
decade, were finally issued in proposed form in 1993. These 
regulations affect public health and safety and are supported 
by the majority of the bottled water industry. The Committee is 
concerned about the inordinately long processing time for these 
regulations and expects FDA to expeditiously move these 
regulations to final notice.
    In the January 6, 1993, Federal Register, the Food and Drug 
Administration proposed a rule requiring food products, which 
contain hydrolyzed proteins and autolyzed yeast extracts, to be 
labeled ``contains glutamate.'' In its proposed rule the FDA 
stated that there is no public health basis for requiring a 
declaration of glutamate present in food as a component of 
hydrolyzed protein. The Committee is concerned with the 
potential loss of more than 2,000 jobs nationwide if this rule 
were implemented. The Committee expects FDA to reconsider the 
proposed rule, taking into consideration the severe economic 
impact and potential loss of jobs that would result from its 
implementation.
                        buildings and facilities
1995 appropriation......................................     $18,150,000
1996 budget estimate....................................       8,350,000
Provided in the bill....................................      15,350,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................      -2,800,000
    1996 budget estimate................................      +7,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For buildings and facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration the Committee provides $15,350,000, a decrease 
of $2,800,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 
and an increase of $7,000,000 above the budget request. The 
increase above the budget request is to continue the 
consolidation of field offices. The funds should be used to 
continue renovation of the National Center for Toxicological 
Research (NCTR).

                            rental payments
1995 appropriation......................................     $46,294,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      46,294,000
Provided in the bill....................................      46,294,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    Annual appropriations are made to agencies of the Federal 
government so that they can pay the General Services 
Administration fees for rental of space and for related 
services.

                          committee provisions

    For rental payments of the Food and Drug Administration the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $46,294,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the same as the 
budget request.

                       Department of the Treasury

                      Financial Management Service

  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation
1995 appropriation......................................     $57,026,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      15,453,000
Provided in the bill....................................      15,453,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................     -41,573,000
    1996 budget estimate................................................

    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-233) 
authorized such sums as necessary to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Treasury for Payment to the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation. These payments reimburse the 
Corporation for interest expenses on U.S. guaranteed debt 
issued by the Corporation. Assistance Corporation debt proceeds 
will be used to provide assistance to financially troubled 
System institutions. Beginning in fiscal year 1989, Treasury 
annually reimburses 100 percent of the Assistance Corporation 
interest expense incurred until January 1994. Between January 
1994 and the ensuing five years, Treasury will reimburse up to 
50 percent of the Assistance Corporation's interest expense, 
with System banks paying the balance. Thereafter all Assistance 
Corporation interest expense will be paid by System banks.
                          committee provisions

    For interest expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $15,453,000, a decrease of $41,573,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and the same amount 
as the budget request.

                          Independent Agencies

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1995 appropriation......................................     $49,144,000
1996 budget estimate....................................      59,711,000
Provided in the bill....................................      49,144,000
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................................
    1996 budget estimate................................     -10,567,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $49,144,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of 
$10,567,000 below the budget request.
    The Commission has made a strong case that the volume and 
complexity of its oversight, enforcement, and analysis 
activities continue to grow dramatically. However, the fiscal 
year 1996 funding level reflects the severe budget constraints 
under which the Committee must operate.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses
1995 appropriation......................................   ($40,420,000)
1996 budget estimate....................................    (39,900,000)
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1995 appropriation..................................   (-40,420,000)
    1996 budget estimate................................   (-39,900,000)

    The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by 
Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to 
the Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23, 
1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the 
direction of a Federal Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The 
Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-205) clarified the 
FCA's role as an arm's-length financial regulator, granting it 
the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal 
financial regulatory agencies. The Act also replaced the 
Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-
time Board members with the FCA Board, comprised of a Chairman 
and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time 
capacity. Not more than two members of the Board shall be 
members of the same political party.
    The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and 
examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System). 
The FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority 
of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The 
institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, Federal 
land bank associations, Federal intermediate credit bank, 
production credit associations, Federal land credit 
associations, agricultural credit associations, and banks for 
cooperatives. The combined lending activities in the System 
institutions provided short- and long-term credit to the 
nation's farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of 
aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions 
are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of the 
System is funded through the sale of Systemwide consolidated 
bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the 
institutions are fully liable for the payment of these 
securities. The operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the 
System institutions and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a 
special fund in the Treasury which is available for the use of 
the FCA.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee provides no limitation on administrative 
expenses for the Farm Credit Administration for fiscal year 
1996. The Farm Credit Administration retains the authority to 
collect and use the assessments of the institutions of the Farm 
Credit System for its operating expenses. The Committee will 
continue its oversight of the Farm Credit Administration and 
issues related to the Administration's activities.
                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701 through 714 and 717 through 719 of the General 
Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for fiscal year 
1996 are fundamentally the same as those included in last 
year's appropriations bill.
    Section 715. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to enroll more than 100,000 acres in the wetlands 
reserve program in fiscal year 1996.
    Section 716. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to enroll additional acres in the conservation 
reserve program.
    Section 720. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to carry out an export enhancement program in 
excess of $800,000,000.
    Section 721. This provision prohibits payments and loan 
forfeitures to support the price of honey in excess of zero 
dollars in the 1994, 1995, and 1996 crop years.
    Section 722. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to provide feed assistance to livestock producers 
if crop insurance protection is available.
    Section 723. Provides that not more than 5% of Class A 
stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be retired in fiscal year 
1995.
    Section 724. Provides that none of the funds appropriated 
or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide 
benefits to households whose benefits are calculated using a 
standard deduction greater than the standard deduction in 
effect for fiscal year 1995.
    Section 725. Provides that none of the funds made available 
in this Act may be used for any program, project, or activity, 
when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to 
which the funds are made available that the program, project, 
or activity is not in compliance with any applicable Federal 
law relating to risk assessment, the protection of private 
property rights, or unfunded mandates.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4), rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee offers the following statement 
in support of its opinion that this bill, as proposed, will 
have no overall inflationary impact over the broad spectrum of 
the nation's economy.
    New obligational authority has been reduced below the 1995 
budget request. Restoration and other increases made by the 
Committee for certain essential purposes, as discussed earlier 
in this report, have been more than offset by reductions 
elsewhere.
    The restoration of funds for rural development programs 
should result in a substantial benefit in our economy by 
providing additional employment in the construction industry--a 
noninflationary benefit.
    The restoration and addition of funds for the various 
research, extension, and conservation activities of USDA should 
help to protect our nation's land and water resources and 
encourage food and fiber production to meet domestic and 
overseas needs, both of which are anti-inflationary in effect.

                    Transfer of Unexpended Balances

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the 
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are 
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
by clause 1(b)(2) of rule X.
    1. Office of the Secretary.--The bill allows the transfer 
of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to the Office of the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental 
payments account based on changing space requirements.
    3. Hazardous Waste Management.--The bill allows the funds 
appropriated to the Department for hazardous waste management 
to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required.
    4. Departmental Administration.--The bill allows 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    5. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of not to exceed $190,000 to the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Research, Education and Economics for the review 
of international issues involving agricultural chemicals and 
food additives.
    6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    7. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    8. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
for the transfer of administrative funds to the Rural Utilities 
Service and the Rural Housing and Community Development 
Service.
    10. Wetlands Reserve Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of wetlands reserve funds to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to carry out the program.
    11. Agricultural Conservation Program.--The bill authorizes 
the transfer of not to exceed 5 percent of the allocation to 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service for technical 
assistance in carrying out the ACP. The bill also authorizes 
the transfer of not to exceed 1 percent of the allocation to 
any other Federal, State, or local public agency for the same 
purpose and under the same conditions.
    12. Conservation Reserve Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of CRP funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
cost-share assistance.
    13. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: Rural 
Economic Development Loans Program Account; Rural 
Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account; Rural 
Development Performance Partnerships Program; Community 
Facility Loans Program Account; Rural Business and Industry 
Loans Program Account; and Rural Development Loans Fund Program 
Account.--The bill provides that administrative funds may be 
transferred to various salaries and expenses accounts.
    14. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    15. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--The bill provides that 
unobligated balances from the supervisory and technical 
assistance program be transferred to the WIC program.
    16. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation; the 
Commodity Credit Corporation program account; and from the 
Public Law 480 program account to cover related salaries and 
expenses.
    17. Public Law 480.--The bill allows for the transfer of up 
to 15 percent of the funds between titles I, II, and III.
    18. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and $589,000 to the Consolidated Farm Service Agency 
for overhead expenses associated with Credit Reform.
    19. Rental Payments (FDA).--The bill allows transfer to or 
from the rental payments account based on changing space 
requirements.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect or provisions in the accompanying bill 
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing 
law. In most instances, these provisions have been included in 
prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the 
knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative 
committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--Language is included that provides $20,216,000 be 
retained by USDA for maintenance, repairs, and renovations of 
USDA facilities. Language is also included which allows the 
transfer of limited amounts to and from this account.
    3. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes 
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out 
research related to the production, processing or marketing of 
tobacco or tobacco products. The bill also includes language 
that allows for the transfer of the title to facilities and 
equipment to non-Federal sources.
    4. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out research related to the production, 
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
    5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing training to non-APHIS personnel.
    6. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority 
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows for flexibility if export activities require 
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable 
factors occur.
    7. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    8. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    9. Section 32 Funds.--The bill includes authority, which 
has been in the bill since fiscal year 1976, to transfer 
section 32 funds to the child nutrition programs. This is 
required to increase funds available for cash payments to 
states for these programs and to purchase and distribute 
agricultural commodities pursuant to section 6 of the National 
School Lunch Act. Under the paragraph in the bill headed 
``Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 
32)'', language is included to authorize these transfers.
    10. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation.
    11. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation 
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill 
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not 
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by 
states and counties is authorized by basic law. This paragraph 
also includes language carried in the bill since 1950, which 
prohibits the use of funds for demonstration projects 
authorized by the Act of April 27, 1935.
    12. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language, 
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill and all 
bills since 1984, provides that funds may be used for 
rehabilitation of existing works.
    13. Consolidated Farm Service Agency--Agricultural 
Conservation Program.--Language is included under this item 
which continues a limitation carried in the bill since fiscal 
year 1963 to prevent provision of financial or technical 
assistance for drainage on certain wetlands. This proviso, 
which was expanded in the 1979 bill, is designed to prevent the 
drainage of potholes in various parts of the country which are 
most vital to the preservation of the supply of American 
waterfowl. Also, a provision is continued in the bill to limit 
payments to any one participant to $3,500, which is below the 
level authorized by existing law. Exception is provided where 
two or more participants join together or for long-term 
agreements. Language included since 1980 provides that the 
conservation practices to be used shall be those determined and 
recommended by county committees and approved by state 
committees and the Secretary.
    The bill includes language to allow ACP funds to be used 
for the water quality incentives program.
    14. Conservation Reserve Program.--Language is included 
which allows CRP payments to be made by the Commodity Credit 
Corporation.
    15. Wetlands Reserve Program.--Language is included which 
allows the use of services and facilities of CCC in carrying 
out the wetlands reserve program.
    16. Rural Housing and Community Development Service--Rental 
Assistance Program.--Language is included which provides that 
agreements entered into during fiscal year 1996 be funded for a 
five-year period.
    17. Food and Consumer Service--Child Nutrition Programs.--
Provides that no funds other than provided in this Act may be 
available for nutrition education and training and the Food 
Service Management Institute.
    18. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included which 
prohibits funding for administrative expenses of WIC clinics 
except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting 
smoking within the space used to carry out the program. 
Language is also included that provides a participation limit 
of not more than 7.3 million on September 30, 1996.
    19. Commodity Assistance Program.--Language is included in 
the bill providing that none of the funds are available to 
reimburse CCC for commodities donated to the program and 
prohibits funds from being used for demonstration projects.
    20. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received 
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities 
involving international development and technical cooperation.
    The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being 
used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
products.
    21. Public Law 480.--A provision is included which limits 
transfers between titles I, II, and III to 15 percent.
    22. Food and Drug Administration.--Language included since 
1986 prohibits any user fee authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    23. Rental Payments (FDA).--Language included since 1985 
allows transfer of limited amounts to and from this account.
    24. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from 
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
    25. General Provisions.--
    Section 704: This provision repeats language carried since 
1972 which permits the accumulation of growth capital not to 
exceed $2,000,000, and which provides that no funds 
appropriated to an agency shall be transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund without the approval of the agency administrator.
    Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is again 
included which provides that certain appropriations in this Act 
shall remain available until expended where the programs or 
projects involved are continuing in nature under the provisions 
of authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation does 
not specifically provide for extended availability. This 
authority tends to result in savings by preventing the wasteful 
practice often found in government of rushing to commit funds 
at the end of the fiscal year without due regard to the value 
of the purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended 
availability is also essential in view of the long lead time 
frequently required to negotiate agreements or contracts which 
normally extend over a period of more than one year. Under 
these conditions such authority is commonly provided in 
Appropriations Acts where omitted from basic law. These 
provisions have been carried through the years in this Act to 
facilitate efficient and effective program execution and to 
assure maximum savings. They involve the following items: 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency 
fund to meet emergency conditions and the reserve fund for 
integrated systems acquisition project, the boll weevil program 
and up to 10 percent of the screwworm program; Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, field automation and information management 
project; and Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, funds for the Native American institutions 
endowment fund and competitive research grants; Foreign 
Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program; 
and funds appropriated for rental payments.
    Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal year 
1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on cooperative 
agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This provision is 
necessary because many universities attempted to apply the same 
overhead rates to cooperative agreements as was being applied 
to grants and contracts, without giving consideration to the 
cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead 
charges.
    Section 710: This provision, carried since 1983, provides 
that none of the funds in this Act shall be available to 
reimburse the General Services Administration for rental 
payment in excess of the amounts specified in the Act.
    Section 711: This provision, added in 1987, provides that 
none of the funds in this Act may be used to restrict the 
authority of CCC to lease space. This provision allows CCC to 
continue to lease space at a lower cost than space leased by 
GSA.
    Section 712: This provision, added in 1990, provides that 
none of the funds in this Act may be made available to pay 
indirect costs on competitive research grants awarded by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in 
excess of 14 percent of total direct costs.
    Section 713: This provision clarifies that loan levels 
provided in the Act are to be considered estimates and not 
limitations. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 provides 
that the appropriated subsidy is the controlling factor for the 
amount of loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest 
rates change, the amount of loan authority will fluctuate.
    Section 714: This provision allows funds made available in 
fiscal year 1996 for the Rural Telephone Bank Program Account; 
the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program 
Account; and the Rural Economic Development Loans Program 
Account to remain available until expended. The Credit Reform 
Act requires that the lifetime costs of loans be appropriated. 
Current law requires that funds unobligated after five years 
expire. The life of some loans extends well beyond the five-
year period and this provision allows funds appropriated to 
remain available until the loans are closed out.
    Section 715: This provision provides that none of the funds 
in this Act may be used to enroll more than 100,000 acres in 
the wetlands reserve program in fiscal year 1996.
    Section 716: This provision provides that none of the funds 
in this Act may be used to enroll additional acres in the 
conservation reserve program.
    Section 717: This provision provides that sums necessary 
for fiscal year 1996 pay raises shall be absorbed within the 
levels appropriated in this Act.
    Section 718. This provision, added in fiscal year 1994, 
provides for compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 719. This provision provides that the Agricultural 
Marketing Service may use cooperative agreements.
    Section 720. This provision provides a limitation on the 
amount of funds for an export enhancement program.
    Section 721. This provision prohibits payments and loan 
forfeitures to support the price of honey in excess of zero 
dollars in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 crop years.
    Section 722. This provision provides that none of the funds 
in this Act may be used to provide feed assistance to livestock 
producers if crop insurance is available.
    Section 723. Provides that not more than 5% of Class A 
stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be retired in fiscal year 
1995.
    Section 724. Provides the funds may not be used to provide 
benefits to households whose benefits are calculated using a 
standard deduction greater than the standard deduction in 
effect for fiscal year 1995.
                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations 
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

Agricultural Research Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants
Compensation for Construction Defects
Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor
Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants
Distance Learning and Medical Link Grants
Rural Rental Housing Program
Food Stamp Program
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program
Soup Kitchens
Food Donations Programs
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Forestry Incentives Program
Public Law 480 Program
Sunflower and Cottonseed Oil Assistance Program

    The Committee notes that most of the programs listed are in 
various stages of reauthorization and it is anticipated that 
these programs will be authorized for fiscal year 1996.

                   Comparison with Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contains a statement detailing how the 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

                            SUBCOMMITTEE DATA                           
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          602(b) allocation             This bill       
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                         Budget                    Budget               
                       authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Comparison with                                                        
 budget resolution:                                                     
    Discretionary...      $13,260      $13,521      $13,260      $13,508
    Mandatory.......       46,501       36,434       49,243       39,087
      Total.........       59,761       49,955       62,503       52,595
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.
                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

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

Budget authority........................................         $62,503
Outlays:
    1996................................................          45,770
    1997................................................           3,441
    1998................................................             957
    1999................................................             376
    2000 and beyond.....................................             313
                            Tax Expenditures

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
    The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and 
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, 
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan 
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available 
under existing law for fiscal year 1996 and beyond.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

New budget authority....................................         $14,264
Fiscal year 1996 outlays resulting therefrom............          11,943
                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1996, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), the following information provides the definition of 
the term ``program, project, and activity'' for departments and 
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall 
include the most specific level of budget items identified in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
1996, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementating 
the required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall 
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 1996 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in 
the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal 
year 1996 budget estimates, as amended, for such departments 
and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in 
addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Consolidated Farm Service Agency the definition 
shall include individual state, district and county offices.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 22(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           roll call number 1

    Date: June 27, 1995.
    Measure: Department of Agriculture appropriations bill, FY 
1996
    Motion by: Mr. Durbin.
    Description of motion: Substitute amendment to the Walsh 
amendment that would establish a committee to negotiate major 
issues within 3 months on any rulemaking dealing with the 
hazard analysis and critical control point system for meat 
inspection.
    Results: Adopted, 14 to 27.
    Members Voting Yea: Mr. Bunn, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dicks, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Hoyer, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo, 
Mr. Skaggs, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Yates.
    Members Voting Nay: Mr. Bevill, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Dickey, 
Mr. Forbes, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Istook, Mr. 
Kingston, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lightfoot, 
Mr. Livingston, Mr. Miller, Mr. Myers, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. 
Neumann, Mr. Packard, Mr. Porter, Mr. Regula, Mr. Riggs, Mr. 
Rogers, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. Walsh, Mr. 
Wicker.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           roll call number 2

    Date: June 27, 1995.
    Measure: Department of Agriculture appropriations bill, FY 
1996
    Motion by: Mr. Walsh.
    Description of motion: To require negotiated rulemaking 
procedures to be used in developing any rulemaking dealing with 
the hazard analysis and critical control point system for meat 
inspection.
    Results: Adopted, 26 to 15.
    Members Voting Yea: Mr. Bevill, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Dickey, 
Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Istook, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Miller, 
Mr. Myers, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Packard, Mr. 
Porter, Mr. Regula, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Skeen, Mr. 
Taylor, Mr. Thornton, Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wicker.
    Members Voting Nay: Mr. Bunn, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dicks, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Lightfoot, 
Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Yates.














































                ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN

    The Agriculture Appropriations bill submitted to the House 
includes a provision which will significantly delay an 
important food safety initiative to reduce illness and death 
caused by food borne pathogens such as E. coli bacteria. 
Reforms to our food safety inspection system are essential to 
prevent tragic outbreaks of food borne disease. USDA has 
estimated that food borne pathogens in contaminated meat and 
poultry have caused 5 million illnesses and 4,000 deaths each 
year.
    In February 1995, USDA initiated a proposed rulemaking on 
Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points 
Systems. Implementation of HACCP has the potential to provide 
significant improvements to food safety and increase consumer 
confidence in meat and poultry products.
    Although there is broad support among producers, packers, 
processors and consumers for a science based HACCP system, 
important questions have been raised about some of the 
requirements and the cost of the proposed rule, particularly 
for small packers and processors. FSIS must give these issues 
careful consideration.
    Due to the complexity and importance of this rulemaking, 
FSIS has made an extraordinary effort to ensure that all 
interested parties have an opportunity to participate in the 
rulemaking process. FSIS has already conducted numerous 
informational briefings, technical conferences and public 
meetings on this proposal. FSIS has also extended the public 
comment period, which doesn't close until next month, to 
provide a total of 150 days. In addition, FSIS has scheduled a 
public forum in August to give interested parties an 
opportunity to discuss the issues raised by the proposed rule. 
Now, however, a small group of packers and processors want to 
stop this public rulemaking process and replace it with a 
``negotiated rulemaking'' dominated by a few interest groups.
    The Secretary of Agriculture has estimated that the 
negotiated rulemaking required by the bill will delay 
implementation of Pathogen Reduction; HACCP regulation by at 
least two and a half years. Although the bill requires the 
committee appointed for the negotiated rulemaking to issue a 
report within nine months of the enactment of the bill, USDA 
estimates that compliance with the requirements of the 
negotiated rulemaking statute would require at least one year. 
USDA will then be required to publish any recommendations from 
the committee and go through a full rulemaking process again.
    Delaying modernization of our meat and poultry inspection 
system invites human tragedy which can be avoided. The interest 
groups which have forced this delaying language risk public 
contempt if another food poisoning tragedy occurs because of 
their action. This committee has made a serious error in 
aligning itself with a strategy which could endanger thousands 
of American families.
                                                       Dick Durbin.


                               I N D E X
                               __________
                                 Report

   Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
                         Related Agencies, 1996

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

                                                                   Page
Office of the Secretary..........................................     3
Executive Operations.............................................     4
    Chief Economist..............................................     5
    National Appeals Division....................................     5
Office of Budget and Program Analysis............................     5
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization...........     6
Chief Financial Officer..........................................     6
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............     8
    Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.....     8
    Advisory Committees (USDA)...................................    10
    Hazardous Waste Management...................................    10
Departmental Administration......................................    10
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    12
Office of Communications.........................................    12
Office of the Inspector General..................................    13
Office of the General Counsel....................................    13
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and            14
  Economics.
Economic Research Service........................................    15
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    16
Agricultural Research Service....................................    16
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    20
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service......    21
    Research and Education Activities............................    21
    Extension Activities.........................................    26
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    29
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory       29
  Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    30
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    33
Agricultural Marketing Service:
    Marketing Services...........................................    33
    Limitation on Administrative Expenses........................    34
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section     35
      32).
    Payments to States and Possessions...........................    36
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    37
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    37
    Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses......    37
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    38
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    38
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    38

                        Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural      40
  Services.
Consolidated Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    42
    State Mediation Grants.......................................    43
    Dairy Indemnity Program......................................    43
    Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.....    44
    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account...........    44

                              Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
    Administrative and Operating Expenses........................    46
    Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund......................    47
Commodity Credit Corporation:
    Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses........................    50
    Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management....    51

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and              52
  Environment.
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation Operations......................................    53
    River Basin Surveys and Investigations.......................    54
    Watershed Planning...........................................    54
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations....................    55
    Resource Conservation and Development........................    56
    Great Plains Conservation Program............................    56
    Forestry Incentives Program..................................    57
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program................    57
    Wetlands Reserve Program.....................................    57
Consolidated Farm Service Agency:
    Agricultural Conservation Program............................    58
    Emergency Conservation Program...............................    59
    Conservation Reserve Program.................................    60
      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community       62
  Development.
Rural Housing and Community Development Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account.................    64
    Rental Assistance Program....................................    66
    Self-Help Housing Land Development Fund......................    67
    Community Facility Loans.....................................    68
    Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants........................    69
    Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor........................    69
    Mutual and Self-Help Housing.................................    70
    Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants..................    71
    Rural Community Fire Protection Grants.......................    71
    Compensation for Construction Defects........................    71
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants............................    72
    Rural Development Performance Partnerships Program...........    72
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    72
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service:
    Rural Business and Industry Loans Program Account............    74
    Rural Development Loans Fund Program Account.................    75
    Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.............    76
    Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization          76
      Revolving Fund.
    Rural Business Enterprise Grants.............................    78
    Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Grants..........    79
    Local Technical Assistance and Planning Grants...............    80
    Rural Development Performance Partnerships Program...........    81
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    82
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Water and Waste Disposal Loans Program Account.........    84
    Rural Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account....    85
    Rural Telecommunications Partnership Loans Program Account...    86
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.........................    87
    Distance Learning and Medical Link Grants....................    88
    Rural Water and Waste Disposal Grants........................    89
    Solid Waste Management Grants................................    90
    Rural Development Performance Partnerships Program...........    89
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    89

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer       91
  Services.
Food and Consumer Service:
    Child Nutrition Programs.....................................    93
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,       94
      and Children (WIC).
    Food Stamp Program...........................................    96
    Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups..................    98
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)................    99
    Nutrition Initiatives........................................   100
    Food Program Administration..................................   101

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service.....................................   102
    Scientific Activities Overseas (Foreign Currency Program)....   103
    Public Law 480...............................................   103
    CCC Export Loans Program Account.............................   105

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
                Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................   107
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................   109
    Rental Payments..............................................   109

                       Department of the Treasury

Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm Credit System    110
  Financial Assistance Corporation.

                          Independent Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   110
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   111

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 701......................................................   113
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................   113
Transfer of Unexpended Balances..................................   114
Changes in the Application of Existing Law.......................   115
Comparison with Budget Resolution................................   120
Five-year Projection of Outlays..................................   120
Tax Expenditures.................................................   121
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments..............   121
Program, Project, and Activity...................................   122
Additional Views Honorable Richard Durbin........................  147