[House Report 105-588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-588
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1999

                                _______
                                

 June 19, 1998.--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. 4101]

    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 1999.

                                                        SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    FY 1999 recommendation compared with
                                                                   FY 1998           FY 1999           FY 1999     -------------------------------------
                                                                appropriation       estimates      recommendation        FY 1998                        
                                                                                                                      appropriation    FY 1999 estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs..............................    $6,940,775,000   $13,924,292,000    14,364,890,000     +7,424,115,000       +440,598,000
Title II--Conservation Programs.............................       786,474,000       826,327,000       784,357,000         -2,117,000        -41,970,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs     2,087,222,000     2,220,118,000     2,173,781,000        +86,559,000        -46,337,000
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs............................    37,222,519,000    38,442,205,000    36,114,845,000     -1,107,674,000     -2,327,360,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs............     1,605,799,000     1,365,172,000     1,424,854,000       -180,945,000        +59,682,000
Title VI--Related Agencies and FDA..........................       990,974,000     1,036,025,000     1,030,420,000        +39,446,000         -5,605,000
Title VII--Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 104-208)..........       159,800,000  ................  ................       -159,800,000  .................
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............................................    49,793,563,000    57,814,139,000    55,893,147,000     +6,099,584,000     -1,920,992,000
      Scorekeeping adjustments..............................      -243,405,000      +256,217,000       +18,717,000       +262,125,000       -237,500,000
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................    49,550,155,000    58,070,356,000    55,911,864,000     +6,361,709,000     -2,158,492,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$13,621,112,000, which is $129,888,000 less than the amount 
available in fiscal year 1998 and $57,492,000 less than the 
budget request.
    For mandatory programs, which account for over 75 percent 
of the bill, the Committee provides $42,543,252,000, an 
increase of $6,864,013,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1998 and $2,101,500,000 below the budget request.

                              Introduction

    The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives 
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture 
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of 
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat 
and poultry supply.
    This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our 
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in 
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure 
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than 
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of 
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for nearly 270 million 
Americans and many more people overseas.
    Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest 
priorities. The bill provides increases of more than 
$15,000,000 to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Food 
and Drug Administration, the Office of the Chief Economist, the 
Economic Research Service, the Food and Nutrition Service, the 
Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service for food safety 
related activities.
    The rural development programs funded in this bill provide 
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic 
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental 
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future 
generations.
    In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous 
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly 
complex market in commodity trading.
    To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and 
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more 
difficult as we continue the effort to balance the budget. 
There are relatively few program increases in this bill. Many 
of the accounts are at current levels of spending or decreased 
from the previous fiscal year.
    In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by 
two main factors: allocations for budget authority and outlays 
in comparison with fiscal year 1998 and the use of user fees by 
the Administration to offset approximately $800 million in new 
spending. Because the proposed user fees require enactment into 
law and extensive rule making, there will be no revenue from 
them for fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the Committee must 
provide necessary spending using appropriated funds and 
limitations on mandatory programs.
    The Committee also believes the USDA needs to devote 
additional management resources to insure that its large and 
diverse computer operations are compliant with Year 2000 
requirements.
    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

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

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

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

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

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

1998 appropriation......................................  \1\ $3,379,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       2,941,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,941,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        -438,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Includes $543,000 provided in P.L. 105-174 supplemental 
appropriations.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,941,000, a decrease of $438,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue to close 
out the backlog of civil rights claims against the Department 
within FY 1999. The Committee further directs the Secretary to 
report on the Department's progress in this area at six month 
intervals.
    The Secretary shall report to the Appropriations Committee 
of the House and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate 
biannually during fiscal year 1999 as to whether the prices of 
raw cane and beet sugar are sufficient to prevent forfeitures 
and that the stock/use ratio is sufficient to ensure stable and 
adequate supplies to consumers and refiners, with consideration 
of its impact on growers, producers, processors, and users.
    The Committee is aware of the Secretary's difficulty in 
complying with the April, 1999 enactment date for Federal milk 
marketing orders. Accordingly, the Committee has included a 
general provision that grants an extension of the date of 
enactment.
    The Committee has included a general provision which limits 
expenses related to advisory committees, panels, task forces, 
and commissions to not more than $1,400,000. This provision is 
intended to cover the activities of all advisory committees, 
panels, task forces, and commissions including any FACA related 
activities. The only exceptions are for panels used to comply 
with negotiated rulemakings and panels used to evaluate 
competitively awarded grants. The Committee expects the 
Department to participate in the National Drought Policy 
Commission.
    The Committee is aware of the concerns that have arisen 
regarding the manner in which the Food Quality Protection Act 
(FQPA) has been implemented. The Committee concurs with the 
direction set forth in Vice President Gore's memorandum of 
April 8, 1998, to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency setting 
forth clear principles to guide implementation of the FQPA. The 
Committee believes that it is essential that the Department of 
Agriculture fully carry out its responsibilities under this 
memorandum. The intent of this directive is to ensure that FQPA 
decisions are based on sound science, and reliable, accurate 
data that reflect the conditions, practices and complexities of 
the nation's agricultural production where practicable while 
taking into consideration new public health and children's 
health provisions.
    The Secretary is directed to report within 90 days of the 
enactment of this Act regarding departmental actions taken to 
comply with and carry out the directives set forth in the April 
8, 1998 memorandum and the Committee's directives set forth 
above.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Committee included language 
designed to limit the personnel detailed to sub-Cabinet 
offices. It had come to the Committee's attention that, while 
each office had requested and received a specific 
appropriation, in fact, many more personnel and funds were 
being used to support sub-Cabinet offices. Each Under or 
Assistant Secretary office should justify its expenditures and 
staffing on the same basis as agencies must. It is apparent 
that Under and Assistant Secretary offices continue to violate 
the spirit of the individual appropriations for these offices. 
Financial shell games have been devised to deflect salaries of 
agency personnel for the continuation of the same function 
detailees have been performing. The Committee includes language 
again this year which prohibits details for more than 30 days. 
The Committee has also appropriately reduced the fiscal year 
1999 appropriations for those agencies contributing funding for 
the purposes of supporting Under and Assistant Secretary 
offices.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to provide a report on 
the status of identifying delinquent farm loan borrowers who 
are also receiving program payments.

                          Executive Operations

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

                     Office of the Chief Economist

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $5,048,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         5,823,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,973,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................          +925,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................          +150,000
                                                                        

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and 
international food and agriculture, 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 $5,973,000, an increase of 
$925,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an 
increase of $150,000 above the budget request.
    The effects of El Nino and other weather-related patterns 
dramatically affect the outcome of all agricultural activity. 
Long term modeling and forecasting efforts in the area of 
climate change can provide valuable information that impact 
producers and consumers alike. The Committee has provided 
$150,000 to work with the International Research Institute for 
Climate Prediction to use existing expertise in forecasting and 
predictive modeling.

           commission on 21st century production agriculture

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................  ................
1999 budget estimate..................................          $350,000
Provided in the bill..................................  ................
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................          -350,000
                                                                        

    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act 
of 1996 authorized the Commission on 21st Century Production 
Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of 
the success of production flexibility contracts in supporting 
the viability of U.S. farming and a review of the future of 
production agriculture and the appropriate role of the Federal 
government.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee does not concur with the budget request for a 
separate appropriation for the Commission on 21st Century 
Production Agriculture. The Committee has included a general 
provision which limits the total amount spent on all advisory 
committees, task forces, panels, and commissions of the 
Department to not more than $1,400,000. The Committee does not 
specify how this funding should be spent, but rather, allows 
the Secretary to prioritize and decide which ones to fund and 
at what funding levels.

                       National Appeals Division

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $11,718,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        13,297,000
Provided in the bill..................................        12,204,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................          +486,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................        -1,093,000
                                                                        

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the Farm 
Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities 
Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $12,204,000, an increase of $486,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$1,093,000 below the budget request.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $5,986,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         6,045,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,120,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................          +134,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................           +75,000
                                                                        

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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,120,000, an increase 
of $134,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
an increase of $75,000 above the budget request.

                office of the chief information officer

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $4,773,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         7,222,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,551,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................          +778,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................        -1,671,000
                                                                        

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,551,000, an increase 
of $778,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $1,671,000 below the budget request.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $4,283,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         4,562,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,283,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................          -279,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $4,283,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$279,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has repeated bill language that directs the 
Chief Financial Officer to continue to market actively the 
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
    The Committee has carried an annual provision regarding the 
Working Capital Fund to allow the National Finance Center (NFC) 
of the Department of Agriculture to accumulate growth capital 
for data services and other improvements. However, it is the 
Committee's understanding that USDA has only used this 
provision to ensure that deficits do not occur in the Working 
Capital Fund. The Committee is aware of the urgent need to 
modernize and improve existing hardware and software systems as 
well as other capital requirements at the NFC. The Committee 
directs that USDA to report back to the Committee on a plan to 
allow the NFC, due to efficiencies, cost savings, or other 
mechanisms, to use revenues or retained earnings of the Working 
Capital Fund for capital improvements.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................          $613,000
1999 budget estimate..................................           636,000
Provided in the bill..................................           636,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................           +23,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 
and personal property management, personnel management, equal 
opportunity and civil rights programs, 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 
$636,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $131,085,000
1999 budget estimate..................................       155,689,000
Provided in the bill..................................       155,689,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................       +24,604,000
    1999 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 
$155,689,000, an increase of $24,604,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Included in this amount is $108,057,000 for rental payments 
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent 
of this appropriation to or from another agency's 
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will 
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor 
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for 
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not 
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.

                       Hazardous Waste Management

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $15,700,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        15,700,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,700,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 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 1998 and the same as the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $29,231,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        32,168,000
Provided in the bill..................................        32,168,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        +2,937,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................  ................
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $32,168,000, an increase of $2,937,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the 
budget request.

        Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................        -7,000,000
                                                                        

    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 or other 
agriculturally related services to socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible 
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian 
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic serving post-secondary 
education facilities.

                          committee provisions

    For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1998 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $3,668,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         3,814,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,668,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................          -146,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,668,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1998 and a decrease of $146,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee includes language allowing the transfer of not less 
than $2,241,000 to agencies funded in this Act to maintain 
personnel at the agency level. The following table reflects the 
amounts provided by the Committee:

                         CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS                        
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1998      FY 1999     Committee 
                                     enacted      estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Activities..........         $957         $994          957
Intergovernmental Affairs........          470          488          470
Agricultural Marketing Service...          176          183          176
Agricultural Research Service....          129          135          129
Animal and Plant Health                                                 
 Inspection Service..............          101          106          101
Cooperative State Research,                                             
 Education, and Extension Service          120          126          120
Farm Service Agency..............          355          369          355
Food and Nutrition Service.......          270          280          270
Food Safety and Inspection                                              
 Service.........................          309          321          309
Foreign Agricultural Service.....          183          191          183
Natural Resources Conservation                                          
 Service.........................          148          154          148
Rural Business-Cooperative                                              
 Service.........................           52           54           52
Rural Housing Service............          147          153          147
Rural Utilities Service..........          142          147          142
Risk Management Agency...........          109          113          109
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................        3,668        3,814        3,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Office of Communications

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $8,138,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         8,319,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,138,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................          -181,000
                                                                        

    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 $8,138,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $181,000 below the 
budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $63,128,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        87,689,000
Provided in the bill..................................        67,178,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        +4,050,000
  1999 budget estimate................................       -20,511,000
                                                                        

    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 $67,178,000, an increase of 
$4,050,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $20,511,000 below the budget request. Of the 
funding provided, $2,085,000 is for pay and related retirement 
costs.
    The Committee expects the Inspector General to report on 
efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the multi-family 
rural housing program by April 1, 1999.
    The Committee supports the Inspector General's law 
enforcement and investigations, audits, and other related 
oversight work of USDA's agencies and programs. Included in the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation is an increase of $1,965,000 for 
these activities.
    The Committee is aware that the USDA, the Department of 
Treasury, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement 
on the allocation of funds received through forfeiture 
proceedings. The Committee believes that funds received as a 
result of this agreement should allow the Inspector General's 
Office to pursue law enforcement initiatives and other related 
activities.
    The Committee strongly supports the Department's Operation 
Talon program to locate and apprehend fugitives who are 
illegally receiving food stamps. This initiative has already 
led to the arrest of nearly 2,500 dangerous fugitives, 
including many individuals being sought for murder, rape, 
assault, and other violent crimes. The Committee urges the 
Department to expand its commitment to Operation Talon and to 
enlist the assistance of state social service agencies in this 
effort.

                     Office of the General Counsel

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $28,759,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        30,446,000
Provided in the bill..................................        30,396,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        +1,637,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................           -50,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $30,396,000, an increase of 
$1,637,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $50,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
has included an increase of $670,000 to provide legal support 
for the Department's Civil Rights program.

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

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................          $540,000
1999 budget estimate..................................           560,000
Provided in the bill..................................           560,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................           +20,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................  ................
                                                                        

    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 $560,000, an increase of $20,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the 
budget request.

                       Economic Research Service

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $71,604,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        55,839,000
Provided in the bill..................................        67,282,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        -4,322,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       +11,443,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $67,282,000, a decrease of $4,322,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of 
$11,443,000 above the budget request. The increase provided 
consolidates all studies and evaluations work of the food 
stamp, child nutrition, and WIC programs into one account. This 
work is to be carried out within the Food and Consumer 
Economics Division of the ERS which conducts research and 
analysis of food programs and food policy issues. The Committee 
expects ERS to consult and work with the staff at the Food and 
Nutrition Service as well as other agencies to assure that all 
studies and evaluations are meeting the needs of the 
Department.
    As part of the nutrition related studies, the Committee 
expects the Department to conduct a study to assess cost 
containment practices used by states to limit branded products 
sold in the WIC food package other than infant formula. The 
study should consider cost containment impacts on: (1) program 
participation; (2) availability at the retail level of foods 
prescribed; (3) voucher redemption rates and participants 
actual food selections; (4) participants on special diets or 
with specific food allergies; (5) participants use of and 
satisfaction with food prescribed; and (6) achievement of 
positive health outcomes. The Committee expects the ERS to 
report to the Committee on Appropriations on this issue no 
later than September 30, 1999.
    The Committee has become aware that plate waste is a 
problem in the School Lunch Program. The Committee encourages 
the ERS to work with the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct 
a study on plate waste in the School Lunch Program and to 
develop recommendations for eliminating this problem.
    The Committee has included an increase of $704,000 so that 
the ERS may conduct an analysis of the needs of small farmers 
and other casualties of an industrializing agriculture sector, 
an electric utility deregulation analysis, and an analysis on 
estimating the benefits of food safety.
    The Committee expects the agency to study the economic 
impacts of the termination of the Wool Act to the sheep and 
goat industry and to rural economies in the primary production 
areas. The results of the study should be reported to the 
appropriate Committees of Congress by February 15, 1999.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $118,048,000
1999 budget estimate..................................       107,190,000
Provided in the bill..................................       105,082,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................       -12,966,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................        -2,108,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $105,082,000, a decrease 
of $12,966,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 
and a decrease of $2,108,000 below the budget request. Included 
in this amount is $23,141,000 for the Census of Agriculture. 
The Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive 
data every five years on all aspects of the agricultural 
economy. For fiscal year 1999, data collection costs are 
significantly reduced since data collection occurred primarily 
in fiscal year 1998.

                     Agricultural Research Service

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $744,382,000
1999 budget estimate..................................       776,828,000
Provided in the bill..................................       755,816,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................       +11,434,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       -21,012,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $755,816,000, an increase of $11,434,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$21,012,000 below the budget request.
    Alternative fish feed, Aberdeen, ID.--Idaho is a national 
leader in the aquaculture industry producing more than 70 
percent of the nation's commercially grown rainbow trout. The 
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 to initiate an 
alternative grain-based fish feed project at the ARS facility 
in Aberdeen, ID. Idaho is in a unique position to coordinate 
needed research to develop solutions to challenges facing the 
aquaculture industry.
    Areawide pest management.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 as requested in the 
budget for research to develop compounds to replace hazardous 
chemicals and to expand IPM and areawide pest management 
practices. New technologies are critical to assist the 
Department in implementing its target of instituting IPM 
practices on 75 percent of the nation's cropland and to meet 
requirements resulting from the Food Quality Protection Act 
(FQPA). No funds are appropriated in this bill to fund an 
Office of Pest Management as proposed in the fiscal year 1999 
budget.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The 
Committee expects the agency to continue its work on the 
Corporation's research at the same levels as fiscal year 1998, 
subject to administrative streamlining reductions concurred in 
by the Committee.
    Biological control of western weeds.--Over 30 million acres 
in western states are currently infested with noxious weeds 
which continue to spread at an alarming rate. Yellow 
Starthistle, Medusa Head and other weeds stifle the ability of 
millions of acres to produce crops, forage for livestock and 
wildlife, and habitat for wildlife. These weeds are also 
invading our most environmentally sensitive parks and natural 
resource acres in the west. The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 to the Western Regional Research Center for 
biological control resources on noxious weeds.
    Citrus tresteza virus research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of Citrus Tresteza Virus (CTV) research. The 
fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided an increase of 
$750,000 for cooperative CTV research. However, the Committee 
believes the most effective use of these funds is through the 
Special Research Grants account administered by CSREES. Funding 
in the amount of $500,000 is transferred to that account in 
fiscal year 1999 for CTV research. The balance is to remain in 
support of the in-house Orlando-Ft. Pierce citrus research 
program.
    Closures of facilities.--The Committee has reviewed and 
again disagrees with the President's recommendation to close 
research laboratories at Prosser, WA; Mandan, ND; Orono, ME; 
and Brawley, CA. The Committee believes that these locations 
are essential components of the Department's agricultural 
research program.
    Continuing programs.--The Committee has reviewed the 92 
projects recommended for elimination in FY 1999, some of which 
were retained by the Committee last year. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of these ongoing research projects in 
addressing increasing problems faced by the Nation's food and 
fiber producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 1999: organics management 
research; shallow groundwater management systems for arid 
irrigated areas; rice research; floriculture; genetic 
characterization of soybean germplasm; development of soybean 
germplasm and production systems for high yield and drought 
prone environments; germplasm evaluation and genetic 
improvement of oats and wild rice; improving sugarcane 
productivity by conventional and molecular approaches to 
genetic development; disease and insect control mechanisms for 
the enhancement of sugar germplasm resistance; development and 
use ofmolecular techniques in oat enhancement; soybean 
diseases; genetically enhanced wheat for quality, productivity, and 
resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses; control of foliar diseases 
and smuts of wheat; Northwest nursery crops research; biological 
control of yellow starthistle and other non-indigenous plant pests in 
the Western U.S.; honeybee research; in-vitro creation and 
commercialization of high solids tomatos and high solids, low sugar 
potatoes; biology and control of virus diseases of sorghum; grain 
legume research; biochemical and molecular regulation of preharvest 
sprouting and grain dormancy in wheat; germplasm enhancement and 
cultivar development of blackberry, strawberry, blueberry, and 
raspberry; sensors and systems for site-specific crop management to 
improve environmental quality; small grains research; sugarcane 
biotechnology research; plant genetics equipment; developing integrated 
weed management systems for efficient and sustainable sugarcane 
production; evaluation of temperate legumes and warm-season grass 
mixtures in sustainable production systems; enhancement of strawberry, 
blueberry, and other small fruit crops through molecular approaches and 
breeding; reduced herbicide inputs for effective weed management 
systems to improve water quality; hops research; Formosan termite; 
management of termites as urban pests in the American Pacific; lyme 
disease (tick management project); reproductive efficiency of beef 
cattle; Poult Enteritis Mortality Syndrome; ecologically-based 
technologies for controlling ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme 
disease; fish disease research; poisonous plant research; postharvest 
handling and mechanization to minimize damage to fruits; enhanced use 
of plant proteins: identifying, isolating, and relating structures to 
properties; improving quality of fresh and fresh-cut produce by 
preventing deterioration in cold storage; flavor optimization of major 
food crops through control of metabolic processes; exploratory thermal 
chemical conversions of starch to enhance derivatization; genetic 
engineering of anaerobic bacteria for improved rumen function; novel 
biopolymers based on agricultural sources; new bacterial 
polysacchraides for food and industry; modification of vegetable oils 
as raw materials for industrial uses; comparative textural analysis of 
fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables; factors responsible for 
control of the textural properties of processed sweet potato products; 
improved peanut quality and bioactive nutrient composition with genetic 
resources; food fermentation research; cotton ginning; and crop/animal 
systems to improve nutrient management and sustainability of dairy 
farms.
    Emerging infectious animal and plant diseases.--The 
Committee is keenly aware of the potential threats posed to 
agriculture and animal and human health from emerging plant and 
animal diseases. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,500,000 to combat new and emerging noxious weeds, biological 
control of weedy plants that severely threaten biodiversity and 
ecosystem functions, and emerging plant diseases that include 
potato blight, sorghum ergot, etc. This research is directed to 
ARS research centers at: Beltsville, MD; Frederick, MD; College 
Station; TX; Weslaco, TX; Albany, CA; and Montpellier, FR.
    In addition, the Committee provides an increase of $250,000 
for rangeland research at the ARS Reno, NV research station to 
emphasize the reestablishment of desirable native grass and 
forage species.
    The Committee is particularly sensitive to the need to 
accelerate research to protect U.S. livestock and human health 
against emerging infectious and zoonotic diseases such as 
tuberculosis, brucellosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis, 
salmonella, etc. Additional funding in the amount of $3,400,000 
is provided to combat these diseases as well as develop 
critical diagnostic tests and basic information for Scrapie, 
BSE, Johne's disease, porcine reproductive and respiratory 
syndrome, avian influenza, and various other disease agents of 
livestock. These funds are to expand the ongoing research 
carried out at existing ARS laboratories located at: Pullman, 
WA; Laramie, WY; Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; and the National 
Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA.
    Endophyte research.--There are over 35 million acres of 
endophyte infected tall fescue pastures in the U.S. responsible 
for annual losses to the beef cattle industry. The Committee 
provides an increase of $200,000 for expanded cooperative 
research with the University of Arkansas, University of 
Missouri, and Oregon State University.
    Everglades preservation.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the research being carried out to restore the 
South Florida ecosystem and provides an increase of $750,000 as 
requested in the President's budget. These funds are to be 
implemented at the Canal Point, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale 
laboratories to accelerate efforts to resolve the ecological, 
hydrological, and agricultural constraints on sustainable 
production in South Florida.
    Fish diseases research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $350,000 in fiscal year 1999 for expanded agriculture 
research at the ARS Auburn, AL research laboratory focusing on 
development of successful disease prevention methods and 
vaccines to thwart warm water fish diseases.
    Floriculture and nursery crop research.--The Committee 
notes that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than 
10 percent of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to implement this 
research. Of the additional funding, $200,000 is provided for 
research at Ohio State University to support the Ornamental 
Plant Germplasm Center and $200,000 is directed to the floral 
and nursery plants research program at the U.S. National 
Arboretum. A portion of this funding should be allocated to 
university partners, including California University and 
Cornell University, through cooperative agreements.
    Food safety.--The Committee is currently providing 
significant funding in support of the department's food safety 
programs. In fiscal year 1998 the Congress appropriated a total 
of $66,262,000 to USDA for the President's food safety 
initiative. ARS funding for food safety research is currently 
$54,849,000, which is an increase of $4,000,000 over the fiscal 
year 1997 level. The Committee understands the importance of 
this research and the need to assure the American people that 
they have a safe and healthy food supply. Within the limited 
budget allocations available for fiscal year 1999, the 
Committee provides an additional $3,750,000 for pre- and post-
harvest food safety research. The Committee directs the Agency 
to implement the additional pre-harvest resources to those 
areas emphasized in the budget at Clay Center, NE; Ames, IA; 
Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; College Station, TX; and West 
Lafayette, IN totaling $1,500,000. The Committee also includes 
$1,000,000 for expanded research to maintain the safety and 
quality of fresh fruits and vegetables as requested in the 
President's budget. The Committee provides an additional 
$1,250,000 for the most essential post-harvest food safety 
research as identified in the fiscal year 1999 request.
    The fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act provided $420,000 
for a food safety study to be conducted by the National Academy 
of Sciences. These funds are deleted in the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations bill.
    Ft. Pierce, FL.--The Committee recognizes the important 
research currently being conducted at the Orlando, FL citrus 
research laboratory and notes its consolidation in the new 
replacement laboratory at Ft. Pierce in fiscal year 1999. The 
new laboratory will carry out a more diverse horticultural 
sciences program. The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 to support additional research scientists under this 
expanded program.
    Formosan Termite Control.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 1998, for the 
ongoing formosan termite control and research program at the 
Southern Regional Research Center.
    Fusarium head blight.--Generally known as ``scab'', 
Fusarium Head Blight poses an extremely serious threat to all 
classes of wheat and barley in the U.S. The effects of scab are 
mostly manifested as reduced farm yield, lowered test weights, 
and reduced grain quality. The problem is amplified because 
scab infected grain is usually contaminated with vomitoxin, a 
toxic metabolyte produced when the fungal pathogen invades the 
developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing an increase 
of $3,000,000 to support the ongoing cooperative effort with 
the 12 land-grant universities to control this serious threat 
to the wheat and barley industries.
    Genetic resources.--The Committee concurs that there is 
need to invest in new biotechnological approaches of genomics 
which promise to unlock secrets controlling agriculturally 
important traits of plant and animal germplasm. The Committee 
provides an increase of $2,100,000 over the fiscal year 1998 
level to support funding of the department's Food Genome 
Initiative. The Committee is supportive of this initiative and 
directs the Department to provide status reports detailing 
program and funding efforts in this research.
    Grape rootstock.--Grapes are now the highest value fruit 
crop in the nation and sixth largest crop overall. Most of the 
crop is processed to raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby 
adding enormous value to the crop. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 for research at Geneva, NY for vitally 
needed research on rootstock development.
    Honey bee.--Varroa mites and trachea mites are having 
devastating effects on wild honeybee populations. Without 
proper control of these pests U.S. agriculture will suffer 
dramatic losses to production. Accordingly, the Committee 
provides $300,000 at the ARS lab in Baton Rouge, LA for the 
development of long term, genetics-based solutions.
    Human nutrition research.--The Committee recognizes the 
ongoing efforts of the ARS Human Nutrition Centers and provides 
an additional $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1999. These resources 
will further research investigations on dietary intake, and 
reduced risk of chronic diseases. The increase is directed to 
the Centers located at Beltsville, MD; Boston, MA; Houston, TX; 
San Francisco, CA; Little Rock, AR; and Grand Forks, ND.
    Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $250,000 for a new geneticist plant 
breeder at the ARS research station at Salinas, CA. This 
increase will strengthen the current research effort on 
development of new lettuce varieties and improved product 
quality.
    Lyme disease.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$200,000 for continued support of the 5 year Northeast Area-
Wide Tick Control Project to achieve a dramatic reduction of 
Lyme Ticks thereby reducing Lyme disease risks to humans.
    Meadowfoam research.--The Committee supports the important 
utilization research conducted at the Peoria, IL Center and the 
work it is doing on meadowfoam. An increase of $200,000 over 
the fiscal year 1998 level is provided to expand research on 
this important new crop at NCAUR.
    Methyl Bromide.--The Committee is aware of the important 
research carried out by ARS to develop alternatives to methyl 
bromide which is effectively utilized as a soil farming agent 
and pest control for stored commodities. The Committee provides 
$14,571,000 for methyl bromide research, the same as the fiscal 
year 1998 funding level.
    National Agricultural Library.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 for the purchase of periodicals, improved 
electronic retrieval capacity, enhanced preservation effort, 
and to expand agriculture network information centers.
    Peanut research.--The Committee notes that peanuts 
represent an essential agricultural industry to the rural 
Southeast. Peanuts are a major commodity in the U.S. and 
International markets. The peanut industry is concerned about 
the need for new and effective technologies to use in place of 
existing marketing methodologies for peanuts from the producer 
to the consumer. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 
in fiscal year 1999 to support this research program to be 
carried out at ARS research laboratories in Dawson, GA and 
Raleigh, NC.
    Pfiesteria research.--The Committee recognizes the need for 
additional research on the relationship between agricultural 
practices and Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay and its 
tributaries. While it has not been clearly established that 
agricultural nutrient sources are responsible for the recent 
outbreaks of Pfiesteria, there is a scientific consensus that 
agricultural-based nutrients can be a contributing factor. In 
this regard, the Committee provides $1,500,000 over the fiscal 
year 1998 level to investigate this matter and to make periodic 
reports to the Committee on the research findings.
    Phytoestrogens research.--The Committee has provided 
$450,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 1998, for the 
Southern Regional Research Center for a broad based research 
program to investigate the mechanisms of production and action 
of phytoestrogens.
    Range research.--The Committee is cognizant of the 
important work carried out at the ARS rangeland research 
station at Burns, OR. Additional staffing is required to meet 
research needs in support of action agencies, farmers and 
ranchers in the Great Basin rangeland area--primarily Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho and Nevada. The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 for this research in fiscal year 1999.
    Rice research.--The Committee continues to emphasize the 
need for rice research and provides an increase of $200,000 to 
enhance rice quality research at the ARS Rice Research 
Laboratory, Beaumont, TX and $250,000 for rice germplasm and 
genetics research at the Davis, CA laboratory.
    Root diseases in wheat and barley.--An increase of $250,000 
is provided to the ARS Root Disease and Biological Control 
Laboratory, Pullman, WA for investigation of root diseases. 
Major research breakthroughs are needed in root disease 
management to achieve high yields possible under conservation 
tillage systems.
    Small fruits research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 to the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, 
Corvallis, OR. The Center conducts and coordinates research 
efforts unique to small fruit industries in the Pacific 
Northwest, including breeding, insect, disease management, 
product development, and market analyses.
    Soil tilth research.--Additional research staffing to carry 
out effective soil and water investigations at the ARS National 
Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, IA is prudent. The Committee 
provides an addition of $500,000 over the fiscal year 1998 
level to support this research.
    Subtropical Animal Research Station.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 1998 
funding level for essential staffing of subtropical animal 
production and germplasm research at the STARS research station 
at Brooksville, FL.
    Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for additional 
staffing at the ARS Miami research station. Expansion of 
research efforts is needed to address emerging pest problems 
from the Caribbean basin areas; development of tropical tree 
fruit as a high value crop; and support the restoration of the 
Everglades ecosystem.
    Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the need for 
additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet 
research program at Ft. Collins, CO. An increase of $200,000 is 
provided to strengthen sugarbeet research at the ARS laboratory 
in fiscal year 1999.
    Survey of food intakes of infants and children.--The 
Committee provided $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to respond to 
the requirements of the Food Quality and Protection Act. The 
survey will enable the Secretary to provide the Environmental 
Protection Agency with essential information on food 
consumption patterns of infants and children. This data will 
also be useful to other agencies that address similar or 
related issues. These funds will not be required in fiscal year 
1999 and are deleted from the fiscal year 1999 bill.
    U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 
for additional staffing to perform research on molecular 
biology to improve agronomic crop tolerance to water and other 
environmental stress factors in the High Plains region.
    Vegetable research.--ARS carries out important research on 
cucumbers, carrots, onions, cabbage, garlic and other 
vegetables essential to the American diet. The Committee 
provides an increase of $200,000 to strengthen this research at 
the Vegetable Harvesting Laboratory, East Lansing, MI; 
Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory, Madison, WI; U.S. 
Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, SC; and the Food Fermentation 
Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
    Wild rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$100,000 in fiscal year 1999 to strengthen program support for 
wild rice research including germplasm preservation, seed 
storage, disease resistance, and plant productivity. This 
program is directed from the ARS St. Paul, MN research 
laboratory.

                        Buildings and Facilities

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $80,630,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        35,900,000
Provided in the bill..................................        61,380,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................       -19,250,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       +25,480,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$61,380,000, a decrease of $19,250,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $25,480,000 
above the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE                     
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 1999     Committee 
                                                  estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES                                    
                                                                        
Arizona:                                                                
     Water Conservation & Western Cotton,                               
     Maricopa.................................  ...........       $1,750
California:                                                             
    Western Human Nutrition Lab, Davis........  ...........       12,300
Florida:                                                                
    Melaleuca Research and Quarantine                                   
     Facility, Ft. Lauderdale.................       $4,000  ...........
Illinois:                                                               
    National Center for Agricultural                                    
     Utilization Research, Peoria.............        8,400        8,200
Iowa:                                                                   
    National Animal Disease Center, Ames......        5,600        4,900
Kansas:                                                                 
    Grain Marketing Research Lab, Manhattan...        1,400  ...........
Louisiana:                                                              
    Southern Regional Research Center, New                              
     Orleans..................................        6,000        6,000
Maryland:                                                               
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center...        2,500        2,500
    National Agricultural Library, Beltsville.        1,200        1,200
Michigan:                                                               
    Avian Disease Lab, East Lansing...........  ...........        2,000
Mississippi:                                                            
    Biocontrol & Insect Rearing, Stoneville...  ...........        1,100
Montana:                                                                
    Northern Plains Ag. Res. Lab, Pest                                  
     Quarantine and IPM Facility, Sidney......  ...........        7,300
New Mexico:                                                             
    Jornada Range Research Station............  ...........        6,700
New York:                                                               
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.........        3,500        3,500
Pennsylvania:                                                           
     Eastern Regional Research Center,                                  
     Philadelphia.............................        3,300        3,300
Utah:                                                                   
    Poisonous Plant Lab, Logan................  ...........          630
                                               -------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.........      $35,900      $61,380
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      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

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $431,410,000
1999 budget estimate..................................       412,589,000
Provided in the bill..................................       431,125,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................          -285,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       +18,536,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $168,734,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1998 and $15,062,000 above the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $20,497,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and $615,000 above the budget 
request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University, the committee provides an appropriation of 
$27,735,000, the same as the budget request and the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1998.

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 1998     FY 1999       Committee    
                                 enacted    estimate       provisions   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                                              
          ACTIVITIES                                                    
                                                                        
Payments Under Hatch Act.....    $168,734    $153,672           $168,734
Cooperative forestry research                                           
 (McIntire-Stennis)..........      20,497      19,882             20,497
Payments to 1890 colleges and                                           
 Tuskegee....................      27,735      27,735             27,735
Special Research Grants (P.L.                                           
 89-106):                                                               
    Aegilops cylindricum (WA)         346  ..........                375
    Aflatoxin (IL)...........         113  ..........  .................
    Agriculture based                                                   
     industrial lubricants                                              
     (IA)....................         200  ..........                250
    Agricultural                                                        
     diversification (HI)....         131  ..........  .................
    Agricultural diversity/                                             
     Red River Corridor (MN,                                            
     ND).....................         250  ..........                250
    Agriculture water usage                                             
     (GA)....................  ..........  ..........                300
    Alliance for food                                                   
     protection (NE, GA).....         300  ..........                300
    Alternative crops (ND)...         550  ..........                600
    Alternative crops for                                               
     arid lands (TX).........  ..........  ..........                100
    Alternative marine and                                              
     fresh water species (MS)         308  ..........  .................
    Alternative salmon                                                  
     products (AK)...........         400  ..........  .................
    Animal science food                                                 
     safety consortium (AR,                                             
     IA, KS).................       1,521  ..........              1,521
    Apple fireblight (NY, MI)         500  ..........                500
    Aquaculture (IL).........         158  ..........  .................
    Aquaculture (LA).........         330  ..........                330
    Aquaculture (MS).........         642  ..........  .................
    Aquaculture (VA).........  ..........  ..........                200
    Aquaculture product and                                             
     marketing development                                              
     (WV)....................         600  ..........  .................
    Babcock Institute (WI)...         312  ..........                400
    Binational agriculture                                              
     research and development         500       2,000  .................
    Biodiesel research (MO)..         152  ..........  .................
    Center for animal health                                            
     and productivity (PA)...         113  ..........                113
    Center for innovative                                               
     food technology (OH)....         281  ..........                381
    Center for rural studies                                            
     (VT)....................          32  ..........  .................
    Chesapeake Bay                                                      
     aquaculture.............         370  ..........                400
    Citrus decay fungus (AZ).         250  ..........  .................
    Citrus tristeza..........  ..........  ..........                500
    Coastal cultivars (GA)...         250  ..........  .................
    Competitiveness of                                                  
     agricultural products                                              
     (WA)....................         677  ..........                700
    Cool season legume                                                  
     research (ID, WA).......         329  ..........                329
    Cotton research (TX).....         200  ..........                200
    Cranberry/blueberry                                                 
     disease and breeding                                               
     (NJ, MA)................         220  ..........                320
    Dairy (AK)...............         250  ..........  .................
    Dairy and meat goat                                                 
     research (TX)...........          63  ..........                 63
    Delta rural                                                         
     revitalization (MS).....         148  ..........  .................
    Designing foods for                                                 
     health (TX).............  ..........  ..........                300
    Drought mitigation (NE)..         200  ..........                200
    Ecosystems (AL)..........         500  ..........                500
    Environmental research                                              
     (NY)....................         486  ..........                486
    Environmental risk                                                  
     factors/cancer (NY).....         100  ..........                100
    Expanded wheat pasture                                              
     (OK)....................         285  ..........                300
    Farm and rural business                                             
     finance (IL)............          87  ..........  .................
    Feed barley for rangeland                                           
     cattle (MT).............         600  ..........                600
    Floriculture (HI)........         250  ..........  .................
    Food and Agriculture                                                
     Policy Institute (IA,                                              
     MO).....................         800  ..........                800
    Food irradiation (IA)....         200  ..........                200
    Food Marketing policy                                               
     center (CT).............         332  ..........                375
    Food Processing Center                                              
     (NE)....................          42  ..........                 42
    Food safety..............       2,000       5,000              2,500
    Food systems research                                               
     group (WI)..............         221  ..........                225
    Forestry (AR)............         523  ..........                523
    Fruit and vegetable                                                 
     market analysis (AZ, MO)         296  ..........                320
    Generic commodity                                                   
     promotion research and                                             
     evaluation (NY).........         212  ..........                212
    Global change............       1,000       1,567              1,250
    Global marketing support                                            
     service (AR)............         127  ..........                127
    Grain Sorghum (KS).......         106  ..........                106
    Grass seed cropping                                                 
     systems for a                                                      
     sustainable agriculture                                            
     (WA, OR, ID)............         423  ..........                500
    Human nutrition (IA).....         473  ..........                473
    Human nutrition (LA).....         752  ..........                752
    Human nutrition (NY).....         622  ..........                622
    Hydroponic tomato                                                   
     production (OH).........         140  ..........                200
    Illinois-Missouri                                                   
     Alliance for                                                       
     Biotechnology...........       1,184  ..........              1,184
    Improved dairy management                                           
     practices (PA)..........         296  ..........                296
    Improved fruit practices                                            
     (MI)....................         445  ..........                445
    Institute for Food                                                  
     Science and Engineering                                            
     (AR)....................         950  ..........  .................
    Integrated production                                               
     systems (OK)............         161  ..........                200
    International arid lands                                            
     consortium..............         329  ..........                500
    Iowa biotechnology                                                  
     consortium..............       1,564  ..........              1,564
    Landscaping for water                                               
     quality (GA)............         300  ..........  .................
    Livestock and dairy                                                 
     policy (NY, TX).........         445  ..........                500
    Lowbush blueberry                                                   
     research (ME)...........         220  ..........                220
    Maple research (VT)......         100  ..........  .................
    Meadowfoam (OR)..........  ..........  ..........                300
    Michigan biotechnology                                              
     consortium..............         675  ..........  .................
    Midwest advanced food                                               
     manufacturing alliance..         423  ..........                475
    Midwest agricultural                                                
     products (IA)...........         592  ..........                592
    Milk safety (PA).........         268  ..........  .................
    Minor use animal drugs                                              
     (IR-4)..................         550         550                550
    Molluscan shellfish (OR).         400  ..........                400
    Multi-commodity research                                            
     (OR)....................         364  ..........                400
    Multi-cropping strategies                                           
     for aquaculture (HI)....         127  ..........  .................
    National biological                                                 
     impact assessment.......         254         254                254
    Nematode resistance                                                 
     genetic engineering (NM)         127  ..........                127
    Non-food uses of                                                    
     agricultural products                                              
     (NE)....................          64  ..........                 64
    Oil resources from desert                                           
     plant (NM)..............         175  ..........                175
    Organic waste utilization                                           
     (NM)....................         100  ..........                100
    Pasture and forage                                                  
     research (UT)...........         225  ..........                225
    Peach tree short life                                               
     (SC)....................         162  ..........  .................
    Pest control alternatives                                           
     (SC)....................         106  ..........  .................
    Phytophthora root rot                                               
     (NM)....................         127  ..........                127
    Plant, drought, and                                                 
     disease resistance gene                                            
     cataloging..............         150  ..........                150
    Plant genome research                                               
     (OH)....................          50  ..........  .................
    Postharvest rice straws                                             
     (CA)....................         300  ..........                300
    Potato research..........       1,214  ..........              1,400
    Poultry carcass removal                                             
     (AL)....................         300  ..........  .................
    Precision agriculture                                               
     (MS)....................         600  ..........                600
    Preharvest food safety                                              
     (KS)....................         212  ..........                212
    Preservation and                                                    
     processing research (OK)         226  ..........                258
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM)         185  ..........                200
    Regional barley gene                                                
     mapping project.........         348  ..........                400
    Regionalized implications                                           
     of farm programs (MO,                                              
     TX).....................         294  ..........                300
    Rice modeling, (AR)......         296  ..........                296
    Rural development centers                                           
     (PA, IA (ND), MS, OR,                                              
     LA).....................         423         423                523
    Rural Policies Institute                                            
     (NE, MO)................         644  ..........  .................
    Russian wheat aphid (CO).         200  ..........                200
    Seafood and aquaculture                                             
     harvesting, processing,                                            
     and marketing (MS)......         305  ..........  .................
    Small fruit research (OR,                                           
     WA, ID).................         212  ..........                300
    Southwest consortium for                                            
     plant genetics and water                                           
     resources...............         338  ..........                338
    Soybean cyst nematode                                               
     (MO)....................         450  ..........                500
    STEEP III--water quality                                            
     in Northwest............         500  ..........                500
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     (MI)....................         445  ..........                445
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     and natural resources                                              
     (PA)....................          94  ..........  .................
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     systems (NE)............          59  ..........                 59
    Sustainable pest                                                    
     mangement for dryland                                              
     wheat (MT)..............         400  ..........                400
    Swine waste management                                              
     (NC)....................         300  ..........                500
    Tillage, silviculture,                                              
     waste management (LA)...         212  ..........                212
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)...  ..........  ..........                200
    Tropical and subtropical.       2,724  ..........              2,500
    Turkey carnavirus (IN)...  ..........  ..........                200
    Urban pests (GA).........          64  ..........  .................
    Vidalia Onions (GA)......          84  ..........                100
    Viticulture consortium                                              
     (NY, CA)................         800  ..........              1,000
    Water conservation (KS)..          79  ..........                 79
    Water quality............       2,461       2,757              2,461
    Weed control (ND)........         423  ..........                400
    Wetland plants (LA)......  ..........  ..........                600
    Wheat genetic research                                              
     (KS)....................         261  ..........                261
    Wood utilization research                                           
     (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI,                                           
     ID, TN).................       3,536  ..........              4,536
    Wool research (TX, MT,                                              
     WY).....................         300  ..........                300
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Special Research                                           
       Grants................      51,495      12,551             49,273
                              ==========================================
Improved pest control:                                                  
    Critical issues..........         200         200                200
    Emerging pest and disease                                           
     issues..................       1,623       4,200              1,623
    Expert IPM decision                                                 
     support issues..........         177         260                177
    Integrated pest                                                     
     management..............       2,731       8,000              2,731
    Pesticide clearance (IR-                                            
     4)......................       8,990      10,711              8,990
    Pesticide impact                                                    
     assessment..............       1,327       1,327              1,327
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest                                              
       control...............      15,048      24,698             15,048
                              ==========================================
Competitive research grants:                                            
    Plant systems............      37,000      47,000             37,500
    Animal systems...........      24,000      29,500             24,500
    Nutrition, food quality,                                            
     and health..............       8,000      11,000              8,600
    Natural resources and the                                           
     environment.............      17,500      27,000             17,750
    Processes and new                                                   
     products................       6,800       9,000              7,050
    Markets, trade and policy       3,900       6,500              4,150
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Competitive                                                
       research grants.......      97,200     130,000             99,550
                              ==========================================
Animal Health and Disease                                               
 (Sec. 1433).................       4,775       4,775              4,775
Critical Agricultural                                                   
 Materials Act...............         550  ..........  .................
Aquaculture Centers (Sec.                                               
 1475).......................       4,000       3,880              3,880
Alternative crops............         650  ..........                700
Sustainable agriculture......       8,000      10,000              8,000
Capacity building grants.....       9,200       9,200              9,200
Payments to the 1994                                                    
 institutions................       1,450       1,450              1,450
Graduate fellowship grants...       3,000       3,000              3,000
Institution challenge grants.       4,350       4,350              4,350
Multcultural scholars program       1,000       1,000              1,000
Hispanic serving institutions       2,500       2,500              3,000
Native American Institutions                                            
 Endowment Fund..............     (4,600)     (4,600)            (4,600)
Secondary/2-year post-                                                  
 secondary...................  ..........  ..........                200
Federal Administration:                                                 
    Agriculture development                                             
     in American Pacific.....         564  ..........                564
    Agriculture waste                                                   
     utilization (WV)........         360  ..........  .................
    Alternative Fuels                                                   
     Characterization Lab                                               
     (ND)....................         218  ..........                218
    Animal Waste Management                                             
     (OK)....................         250  ..........                300
    Center for Agricultural                                             
     and Rural Development                                              
     (IA)....................         355  ..........                355
    Center for Human                                                    
     Nutrition (MD)..........         150  ..........  .................
    Center for North American                                           
     Studies (TX)............          87  ..........                 87
    Data Information System..         800       2,000              1,000
    Geographic information                                              
     system..................         844  ..........                844
    Mariculture (NC).........         150  ..........                150
    Mississippi Valley State                                            
     University..............         583  ..........  .................
    National Center for                                                 
     Peanut Competitiveness..         150  ..........                300
    Office of grants and                                                
     program systems.........         310         310                310
    Pay costs and FERS                                                  
     (prior).................         900       1,236              1,100
    Peer panels..............         350         350                350
    PM-10 study (CA, WA).....         873  ..........                873
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,                                             
     HI, MS, MA, SC).........       3,354  ..........              3,354
    Water quality (IL).......         492  ..........                492
    Water quality (ND).......         436  ..........                436
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal                                                    
       Administration........      11,226       3,896             10,733
                              ==========================================
      Total, Research and                                               
       Education Activities..    $431,410    $412,589           $431,125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternative crops.--The Committee provides $700,000 for 
alternative crops, of which $500,000 is for canola research and 
$200,000 is for hesperaloe research.
    Agriculture Water Usage (GA)--The demand for water is 
increasing the need for more efficient water practices. 
Agriculture is a major user of water and long-term planning 
will alleviate waste and pollution in heavily used agriculture 
areas. The Committee provides $300,000 for a five-year project 
to provide monitoring and modeling of certain commodities' 
water uses and practices.
    Alternative crops for arid lands (TX)--The Committee 
provides $100,000 for research on arid land crops. Research in 
this area focuses on providing diversification of agriculture 
niche products including mesquite and prickly pear. These 
plants have historically been considered pests but through 
research are showing promise for productive agriculture.
    Aquaculture (VA)--The Committee has provided $200,000 for 
research on recirculating aquaculture systems. Closed system 
aquaculture offers a promising alternative to traditional 
aquaculture. This type of system reduces waste use by 95%, 
reduces and contains waste, assures uniformly high quality 
products, and provides faster fish growth and higher survival 
rates.
    Citrus Tristeza--This program was previously conducted 
through the Agricultural Research Service. The Committee 
provides $500,000 for research to assist in the suppression and 
eradication of citrus tristeza.
    Cranberry (MA)--Demand for cranberries has expanded rapidly 
in recent years outstripping domestic supply. Research is 
needed to find better weed and pest control for cranberry 
yields. The Committee has included $100,000 for research at the 
University of Massachusetts.
    Designing foods for health (TX)--Diet related diseases are 
the leading cause of two-thirds of the 2 million deaths that 
occur in the U.S. each year. Research has established that 
certain fruits and vegetables contain certain compounds 
important in the prevention and treatment of diseases. The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for an initiative to establish 
the role of delivery of improved products to consumers for 
health.
    Integrated Pest Management--The Committee expects CSREES to 
implement its IPM research and extension programs with 
extensive farmer participation in all aspects of the program, 
substantial attention to on-farm research and demonstration 
projects, close coordination of research and extension 
activities, and explicit plans for communicating usable results 
to intended users and audiences.
    Meadowfoam (OR)--Meadowfoam is a plant whose seed oil is 
being researched for uses in cosmetics, plastics, metalworking 
lubricants and other industrial products. This work was 
previously carried out through an agreement with the 
Agricultural Research Service. The Committee provides $300,000.
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)--Tomato wilt virus epidemics cause 
an estimated $100,000,000 in losses to peanut and vegetable 
crops annually. The Committee provides $200,000 to begin 
research to eliminate this disease.
    Turkey carnavirus (IN)--Turkey carnavirus is the major 
causative factor for turkey poult enteritis. This disease has 
resulted in significant losses in turkey production. Research 
will focus on development of diagnostic procedures and 
effective vaccines for the prevention of the disease. The 
Committee provides $200,000 for this research effort.
    Wetland plants (LA)--Shoreline and coastal erosion have 
become major problems in coastal states. Current methods for 
control are inadequate and generally involve major 
environmental damage. Research in this area is beginning to 
target native plant species. The Committee provides $600,000 to 
continue biotechnology applications in wetlands plant 
production for erosion control purposes at the Rice Research 
Station in Louisiana.
    Secondary/two year post secondary education--The Committee 
believes that it is important that the expertise and resources 
of the Department of Agriculture be available to support 
secondary agricultural education. The Committee requests a 
report on USDA's activities and efforts to cooperate with the 
U.S. Department of Education on all activities conducted and 
plans for future activities to collaborate and cooperate in 
providing both teaching and technical support for school-based 
agricultural education. The Committee has provided $200,000 to 
establish a pilot demonstration project for a secondary/two 
year post secondary education program.
    Wood utilization--The Committee has included an increase of 
$1,000,000 for the wood utilization grants program. The 
increase allows for $450,000 at the University of Tennessee and 
$550,000 for a three state consortium in the northwest 
(University of Idaho, Washington State University, and 
University of Montana).

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      ($4,600,000)
1999 budget estimate..................................       (4,600,000)
Provided in the bill..................................       (4,600,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  (...............
                                                                    ...)
    1999 budget estimate..............................  (...............
                                                                    ...)
                                                                        

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides authority to establish an 
endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (29 tribal 
controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational 
opportunities for Native Americans by building educational 
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student 
recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty 
preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific 
instrumentation for teaching. 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 as the amount available 
in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

                          Extension Activities

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $423,376,000
1999 budget estimate..................................       418,651,000
Provided in the bill..................................       416,789,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        -6,587,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................        -1,862,000
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Extension activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $416,789,000, a decrease of $6,587,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$1,862,000 below the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY 1998    FY 1999    Committee
                                         enacted    estimate  provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Extension Activities                                           
                                                                        
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)...............   $268,493   $257,753    $268,493
Smith Lever: 3(d)                                                       
    Farm safety.......................      2,855  .........       3,000
    Food and nutrition education                                        
     (EFNEP)..........................     58,695     56,347      56,147
    Food safety.......................      2,365      7,365       3,500
    Indian reservation agents.........      1,672      5,000       1,672
    Pest management...................     10,783     15,000      10,783
    Pesticide impact assessment.......      3,214      3,313       3,214
    Pesticide applicator training.....  .........      1,500         300
    Rural development centers.........        908        908         908
    Sustainable agriculture...........      3,309      3,309       3,309
    Water quality.....................      9,061      9,061      10,061
    Youth at risk.....................      9,554     10,000       9,000
1890's Colleges and Tuskegee..........     25,090     25,090      25,090
1890's facilities grants..............      7,549     12,000       8,549
Renewable Resources Extension Act.....      3,192      3,192       3,192
Agricultural telecommunications.......        900  .........  ..........
Rural health and safety education.....      2,628  .........  ..........
Extension services at the 1994                                          
 institutions.........................      2,000      3,500       2,000
                                       ---------------------------------
      Subtotal........................    412,268    413,338     409,218
                                       =================================
Federal Administration and special                                      
 grants:                                                                
    Ag in the classroom...............        208        208         208
    Beef producers' improvement (AR)..        197  .........  ..........
    Delta teachers academy............      3,500  .........  ..........
    Diabetes detection, prevention                                      
     (WA).............................  .........  .........         550
    Extension specialist (AR).........         99  .........  ..........
    Extension specialist (MS).........         50  .........  ..........
    General administration............      4,787      5,105       4,950
    Income enhancement demonstration                                    
     (OH).............................        246  .........         250
    Integrated cow/calf resources                                       
     management (IA)..................        300  .........         300
    National Center for Agriculture                                     
     Safety (IA)......................        195  .........  ..........
    Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS).....        326  .........         326
    Pilot tech. transfer (WI).........        163  .........         163
    Range improvement (NM)............        197  .........         197
    Rural development (NM)............        247  .........         280
    Rural development (OK)............        150  .........         150
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).........        246  .........  ..........
    Wood biomass as an alternative                                      
     farm product (NY)................        197  .........         197
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration...     11,108      5,313       7,571
                                       =================================
      Total, Extension Activities.....   $423,376   $418,651    $416,789
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is concerned that funds for cooperative 
agriculture extension are being used in cooperation with not-
for-profit research organizations focusing on Federal policies 
and programs that promote Federal welfare programs, such as, 
but not limited to, the Earned Income Tax Credit. The Committee 
encourages the Cooperative Extension System to only maintain 
activities that help people improve their lives through 
education.
    Diabetes detection, prevention, and care.--The Committee 
provides $550,000 for a pilot demonstration project to provide 
rural residents in Washington and Hawaii access to state-of-
the-art health technology and education related to diabetes and 
diabetes complications through the existing Extension Service 
County structure and communications system. These funds will 
allow Extension personnel to be trained in the use of advanced 
diabetes detection techniques.
    Water Quality.--The Committee has provided an increase of 
$1,000,000 to Extension Service's water quality program. These 
funds should be used to expand the Farm*A*Syst voluntary 
pollution prevention programs.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................          $618,000
1999 budget estimate..................................           642,000
Provided in the bill..................................           642,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................           +24,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................  ................
                                                              ..........
                                                                        


    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 
$642,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $425,932,000
1999 budget estimate \1\..............................       417,752,000
Provided in the bill..................................       424,500,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        -1,432,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       +6,748,000 
                                                                        
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($9,935,000).             

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

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE               
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1998      FY 1999     Committee 
                                     enacted      request     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:                                          
    Ag. quarantine inspection....      $26,747      $30,648      $30,648
        User fees................       88,000      100,000       88,000
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, AQI..........      114,747      130,648      118,648
                                  ======================================
                                                                        
    Cattle ticks.................        4,627        4,852        4,852
    Foot-and-mouth disease.......        3,803        3,846        3,846
    Sanitary/phytosanitary                                              
     standards:..................                                       
        Import/export inspection.        6,815        7,263        7,263
        International programs...        6,630        8,243        7,365
    Fruit fly exclusion and                                             
     detection...................       20,970       22,322       22,322
    Screwworm....................       31,713       30,623       30,623
    Tropical bont tick...........          444          414          414
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease                                           
       Exclusion.................      189,749      208,211      195,333
                                  ======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health                                              
 Monitoring:                                                            
    Animal health monitoring and                                        
     surveillance................       61,464       65,017       65,017
    Animal and plant health                                             
     regulatory enforcement......        5,855        6,036        6,036
    Pest detection...............        6,302        6,685        6,426
                                  --------------------------------------
          Total, Plant and Animal                                       
           Health Monitoring.....       73,621       77,738       77,479
                                  ======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management                                          
 Programs:                                                              
    Aquaculture..................          567          583          567
    Biological control...........        6,275        8,467        8,467
    Boll weevil..................       16,209        4,090       16,209
    Brucellosis eradication......       19,818       11,654       11,654
    Golden nematode..............          435          419          419
    Gypsy moth...................        4,366        4,702        4,504
    Imported fire ant............        1,000            0        1,000
    Misc. plant diseases.........        1,516        1,461        1,461
    Noxious weeds................          454          382          454
    Pink bollworm................        1,048            0        1,048
    Pseudorabies.................        4,481        4,567        4,567
    Scrapie......................        2,931        3,199        2,991
    Silverleaf whitefly..........        1,877            0            0
    Tuberculosis.................        4,920        5,012        4,920
    Wildlife Services operations.       28,487       26,051       28,732
    Witchweed....................        1,638        1,546        1,546
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease                                           
       Management Programs.......       96,022       72,133       88,539
                                  ======================================
4. Animal Care:                                                         
    Animal welfare...............        9,175        6,374        9,175
    Horse protection.............          353          361          361
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Animal Care.........        9,528        6,735        9,536
                                  ======================================
5. Scientific & Technical                                               
 Services:                                                              
    Biotechnology/environmental                                         
     protection..................        8,132        7,393        7,393
    Integrated systems                                                  
     acquisition.................        3,500        3,696        3,696
    Plant methods development                                           
     labs........................        5,048        4,891        4,891
    Veterinary biologics.........       10,345        7,098        7,098
    Veterinary diagnostics.......       15,622       16,065       16,065
    Wildlife Services methods                                           
     devel.......................       10,215        9,687       10,365
                                  --------------------------------------
          Total, Scientific and                                         
           Technical Services....       52,862       48,830       49,508
                                  ======================================
6. Contingency fund                      4,500        4,105        4,105
                                  ======================================
          Total, Salaries and                                           
           Expenses..............     $426,282     $417,752     $424,500
Recap:                                                                  
    Appropriated.................      338,282      317,752      336,500
    AQI User Fees................       88,000      100,000       88,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--The Committee 
provides an appropriation of $88,000,000 for the agricultural 
quarantine inspection user fee program, the same as the amount 
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $12,000,000 
below the budget request.
    The Committee notes the rapid growth of imports through 
Miami International Airport and requests that the Department 
consider allocation of additional resources there to protect 
American agriculture and the safety of the food supply.
    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
urges APHIS to implement regulations for the safe 
transportation of horses to slaughterhouse facilities.
    Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs APHIS to assure, 
to the maximum extent possible, that all control activities be 
cost-shared with local sponsors. The Committee also expects 
APHIS to continue work related to blackbird damage control in 
Louisiana. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for rabies control 
activities.
    The Committee expects APHIS to intensify its efforts in 
both research and operations to control migratory fish-eating 
birds, such as the double crested cormorant, which are causing 
serious problems to the Southeastern aquaculture industry.
    The Committee directs that APHIS continue its efforts to 
maximize cost sharing of control activities in all states to 
the extent possible. However, the Committee believes that 
circumstances vary among states and does not support the rigid 
cost sharing requirement proposed in the budget.
    Avocados.--The Committee urges the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service to continue working with U.S. avocado 
growers in implementing procedures for the safe importation of 
Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on the 
status of Mexican avocado imports including any problems in 
pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel and importation, 
including diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved 
destinations. The report should be submitted with the Fiscal 
Year 2000 budget request for the agency.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports the development 
of a program for the control, management, and eradication of 
the imported fire ant and provides funding for this program at 
the same level as fiscal year 1998.
    Hog cholera.--The Committee believes there is a very high 
risk of introduction of hog cholera into the United States due 
to the presence of the disease in the Caribbean. The Committee 
believes this should be viewed as an emergency situation and 
the following efforts should be undertaken: (1) preclearance of 
passengers entering the United States from high risk countries; 
(2) enhanced surveillance of high risk U.S. herds; (3) 
enforcement of the Swine Health Protection Act; and (4) 
improved training and educational efforts for state and Federal 
animal health officials and accredited veterinarians.
    Horse Protection.--The Committee is concerned about the 
implementation of the Department's recently released Strategic 
Plan for the Horse Protection Act which proposes to transfer 
certain enforcement responsibilities of the Act to six Horse 
Industry Organizations. These inspection programs have been 
formally approved and certified by APHIS. The Committee 
believes that written enforcement agreements need to be 
negotiated and executed between APHIS and each of these six 
Horse Industry Organizations to reduce conflicts in the 
inspection process and to ensure proper implementation of the 
goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. The Committee 
expects APHIS and the six Horse Industry Organizations to 
include in these written enforcement agreements the following 
elements: (1) a uniform horse inspection and grading system, 
which relies exclusively on generally-accepted equine medical 
principles, to be used by both Department and industry 
inspectors at horse shows, exhibitions, sales or auctions; (2) 
a schedule of minimum suspension penalties for horse show 
participants which relies on the facts and circumstances 
standards authorized by the Act; and (3) a fair and effective 
system for resolving disputes in the field between Department 
and industry inspectors. The Committee further expects APHIS 
and the six Horse Industry Organizations to negotiate these 
written enforcement agreements in good faith and execute such 
agreements prior to the start of the 1999 show season.
    Methods Development.--The Committee provides $450,000 for 
continuation of trap testing, development of best management 
practices and related activities necessary to meet U.S. 
obligations under an international agreement for trap 
standards. The Committee expects that activities funded by this 
appropriation shall continue to be carried out by APHIS 
Wildlife Services and in full cooperation with state wildlife 
management agencies and the International Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies.
    National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project for 
Dairy Cattle.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1998 level for the National Farm Animal 
Identification and Records Project for Dairy Cattle to be 
coordinated with the Holstein Association.
    Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee 
expects that imported products will be subjected to the same 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards as domestic products and 
those that do not meet the U.S. standards will be rejected. 
APHIS should provide adequate staffing levels at the borders 
and ports of entry to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary 
standards are upheld.
    Screwworm.--The Committee notes that the transfer of the 
screwworm facility in Chiapas, Mexico in several years may add 
to serious unemployment problems in the area. The Committee 
directs APHIS to work with other appropriate USDA and 
multinational agencies to develop possible solutions, including 
agricultural production cooperatives, which do not compete with 
U.S. agricultural production.
    Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee expects APHIS to 
continue detection and eradication work on the Asian longhorned 
beetle from the contingency fund.

                        Buildings and Facilities

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $4,200,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         5,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,200,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        +1,000,000
    1999 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 
$5,200,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           Marketing Services

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $46,567,000
1999 budget estimate..................................        58,469,000
Provided in the bill..................................        46,567,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................       -11,902,000
                                                                        

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the 
authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities. Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory 
programs, AMS aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing 
and effective distribution and transportation of products from 
the Nation's farms.
    Programs administered by this agency include 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 
$46,567,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1998 and a decrease of $11,902,000 below the budget request. 
Included in this amount is an increase of $505,000 for the 
Organic Standards program and $110,000 for International Market 
News. The Committee is aware that the Department has completed 
its assistance with the salmon marketing program and that 
funding will no longer be needed for this activity. The 
Committee also provides language to allow for the collection of 
fees for the development of standards.
    The Committee expects implementation of the Organic 
Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be 
published in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee is aware that the Department guidelines for 
commodity purchase programs relating to small businesses 
effectively prohibit many farmer cooperatives from 
participating in such programs. The Committee has included a 
general provision that the USDA does not prohibit eligibility 
or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives in the commodity 
purchase program.
    The Committee directs the Agricultural Marketing Service to 
request public comment regarding establishing, on a voluntary 
user-fee basis, a Quality Through Verification Program by 
December 1, 1998.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 limitation.......................................     ($59,521,000)
1999 budget limitation................................      (60,730,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (60,730,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 limitation...................................      (+1,209,000)
    1999 budget limitation............................  (...............
                                                             ..........)
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides 
$60,730,000, an increase of $1,209,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.

          Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                              (Section 32)

1998 appropriation......................................     $10,690,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      10,998,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,998,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        +308,000
    1999 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 1997 through 1999:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1997-1999              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 1998 current    FY 1999 current 
                                                           FY 1997 actual        estimate           estimate    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts).........     $5,923,376,725     $5,730,107,608     $5,701,865,817
Less transfers:                                                                                                 
    Food and Nutrition Service.........................     -5,433,753,000     -5,151,391,000     -5,048,150,000
    Commerce Department................................        -66,381,020        -65,734,190        -65,734,015
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers.................................     -5,500,134,020     -5,217,125,190     -5,206,534,015
                                                        ========================================================
Budget authority.......................................        423,242,705        512,982,418        495,331,802
Unobligated balance available, start of year...........        300,000,000        233,868,236        129,335,198
Recoveries of prior year obligations...................         38,784,325                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Available for obligation...........................        762,027,030        746,850,654        717,317,000
Less obligations:                                                                                               
    Commodity procurement:                                                                                      
        Child nutrition purchases......................        399,949,263        400,000,000        400,000,000
        Emergency surplus removal......................        100,946,696        193,627,456                  0
        Diversion payments.............................          9,000,000                  0                  0
        Disaster relief................................          2,150,000          7,000,000                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, commodity procurement.................        512,045,959        600,627,456        400,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
    Administrative funds:                                                                                       
        Commodity purchase service.....................          5,624,409          6,198,000          6,319,000
        Marketing agreements and orders................         10,488,426         10,690,000         10,998,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, administrative funds..................         16,112,835         16,888,000         17,317,000
                                                        ========================================================
          Total, obligations...........................        528,158,794        617,515,456        417,317,000
                                                        ========================================================
          Carryout.....................................        233,868,236        129,335,198        300,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
          Unobligated balance available, end of year...        233,868,236        129,335,198        300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$10,998,000, an increase of $308,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................        $1,200,000
1999 budget estimate..................................         1,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,200,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..............................  ................
                                                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,200,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $25,390,000
1999 budget estimate..................................    \1\ 11,797,000
Provided in the bill..................................        29,042,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        +3,652,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................       +17,245,000
                                                                        
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($21,476,000) offset by   
  startup costs of $4.2 million.                                        

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$29,042,000, an increase of $3,652,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $17,245,000 
above the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for restructuring the 
Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Committee believes 
that the efficiencies that could be gained from consolidating 
the Packers and Stockyards Administration from 11 regional 
offices to 3; consolidating two program divisions and six 
branches into one policy/litigation office with three branches; 
and transferring 20 percent of headquarters positions to field 
offices would benefit the agency as well as the taxpayer. This 
restructuring provides the agency with the ability to 
investigate anticompetitive practices and provide flexibility 
in enforcing the trade practice and payment protection 
provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
    The Committee has included an increase of $397,000 for 
packer concentration and industry structure.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

1998 limitation.........................................   ($43,092,000)
1999 budget limitation..................................    (42,557,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (42,557,000)
Comparison:
    1998 limitation.....................................      (-535,000)
    1999 budget limitation...................(.........................)

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,557,000, a decrease of 
$535,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 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

1998 appropriation......................................        $446,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         598,000
Provided in the bill............................... ....................
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        -446,000
    1999 budget estimate................................        -598,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee has provided no separate funding for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. The 
Administration annually requests funding for additional 
positions in the Office of the Under Secretary for ``policy 
guidance.'' The Administration also annually requests 
additional funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
which is the single agency for which the Under Secretary has 
oversight responsibility. Given the extremely tight funding 
situation and the need to add resources to the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, the Committee has provided $446,000 for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety within the budget 
of the Food Safety and Inspection Service for fiscal year 1999. 
This will enable the Administration to best decide where 
resources are needed. The $446,000 is the same amount available 
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety in fiscal 
year 1998 and $152,000 below the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $588,761,000
1999 budget estimate..................................   \1\ 149,566,000
Provided in the bill..................................       609,250,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................       +20,489,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................      +459,684,000
                                                                        

    \1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($573,434,000) and 
start up costs of $100 million.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Office 
of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $609,250,000, an increase of $20,489,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase 
of $459,684,000 above the budget request.
    The budget request assumes enactment of user fees totaling 
$573,434,000. The Committee believes that the delay on the part 
of the Administration in sending the necessary authorizing 
legislation to Congress and the lack of support among industry 
and consumer groups for the user fees require appropriated 
funds to insure that the critical activities of the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service continue in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee regards the Administration's use of user fees 
for food safety as an accounting device to allow new spending 
on other programs as a grave matter, particularly considering 
the importance of food safety. If the Administration is serious 
about the implementation of user fees to pay for food safety 
inspection activities, it should deliver the necessary 
legislation to Congress in a timely manner, develop a realistic 
plan to support that legislation and allow for a public 
discussion of the issue with consumer groups, producers and 
other interested parties.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and any other 
appropriate agency to provide the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations an annual report on the incidence of 
foodborne illnesses in the United States. The report should be 
submitted with the annual request for funding for the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service.
    The Committee is concerned by reports that some 
difficulties in implementation of the new Hazard Analysis 
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system have occurred due to 
inadequate training of inspectors. The Committee expects 
science-based training in HACCP to be conducted with curricula 
and accredited instructors of organizations such as the 
International Meat and Poultry HACCP Alliance or training 
certified by the Administrator as equivalent thereto.
    The Committee directs the General Accounting Office to 
conduct a study of the implementation of the HACCP system with 
emphasis on regulatory review and the similarity of FSIS' HACCP 
systems to the seven principles of HACCP as outlined by the 
National Advisory Commission on the Microbiological Criteria 
for Food, the training of plant personnel and the adequacy of 
the dispute resolution process between producers and 
inspectors. The Committee understands that, because HACCP has 
not been fully implemented yet, this study will not be a final 
evaluation of the program.
    The fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act required FSIS to 
publish a final rule to implement the egg refrigeration 
provisions as contained in the 1991 amendments to the Egg 
Products Inspection Act. The Committee expects that publication 
of a proposed rule will be completed in a timely fashion so 
that there will be an opportunity for public comment before the 
final rule is published as required in the 1998 bill.
    The Committee does not agree to proposed bill language 
which would waive the requirement that Federal funds for any 
year shall not exceed 50 percent of the estimated total cost of 
cooperative state inspection programs.
    The Committee notes that FSIS has been working on 
development of an electronic system for issuing export 
certificates and expects FSIS to report on the feasibility and 
cost of such a system when it presents its fiscal year 2000 
budget justification.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

1998 appropriation......................................        $572,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         597,000
Provided in the bill....................................         597,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................         +25,000
    1999 budget estimate..................... ..........................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $597,000, an increase of $25,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency

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

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                                              Transfer from                     
                                                             Appropriation   program accts.     Total, FSA, S&E 
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation........................................    $699,579,000    ($211,265,000)      ($910,844,000)
1999 budget estimate \1\..................................     723,478,000     (229,190,000)       (952,668,000)
Provided in the bill......................................     724,499,000     (211,265,000)       (935,764,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation....................................     +24,920,000  (...............                    
                                                                                      .....)       (+24,920,000)
    1999 budget estimate..................................      +1,021,000     (-17,925,000)       (-16,904,000)
                                                                                                                


    \1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($10,000,000).

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $724,499,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $211,265,000, for a total 
program level of $935,764,000. This is an increase of 
$24,920,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $16,904,000 below the budget request.
    The amount provided includes pay costs, retirement costs, 
and non-Federal county office support and reductions proposed 
as part of the USDA 1994 Reorganization Act. The Committee 
expects the Department to defer any further staff reductions 
beyond those already agreed to in the 1994 restructuring plan 
until such time as an independent study of staff levels and 
workload requirements is completed and reviewed/evaluated by 
the appropriate Committees of Congress.
    The Committee remains concerned about the Department's 
aging information systems and its ability to complete a 
transition to a common county office structure and computing 
system. Streamlined county offices are necessary and the 
ability of those offices to effectively serve farmers and 
others in rural areas is the ultimate goal. To assist in this 
process, the Committee has provided an increase of $10,000,000 
for the service center implementation and common computing 
environment concept.
    The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm 
loan and assistance programs to those in most economic need.

                         state mediation grants

1998 appropriation......................................      $2,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       4,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................................
    1999 budget estimate................................      -2,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,000,000, the same as the amount available 
in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $2,000,000 below the 
budget request.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program

1998 appropriation......................................        $550,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         450,000
Provided in the bill....................................         450,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        -100,000
    1999 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 programalso 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 $450,000, a decrease of $100,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the 
budget request.

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

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

                         estimated loan levels

1998 loan level.........................................($2,400,693,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (2,991,034,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (2,627,031,000)
Comparison:
    1998 loan level.....................................  (+226,338,000)
    1999 budget estimate................................  (-364,003,000)

Note.--Public Law 105-18 provided supplemental 1997 appropriations of 
$29,300,000 to support a loan level of $164,000,000. These funds are not 
reflected here.

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

                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 1999 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are: $500,031,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$75,000,000 is for direct loans and $425,031,000 is for 
guaranteed loans; $1,976,000,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $500,000,000 is for direct loans, $200,000,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,276,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $1,000,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for emergency disaster loans; 
$100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans; and $25,000,000 
for credit sales of acquired property.

                      agriculture credit programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1999        Committee  
                                                                   FY 1998 level     estimate       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:                                                                                             
Farm ownership:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................................       ($78,320)       ($85,000)       ($75,000)
    Guaranteed..................................................       (425,000)       (425,031)       (425,031)
Farm operating:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................................       (565,000)       (500,000)       (500,000)
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................       (992,906)     (1,700,000)     (1,276,000)
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................       (235,000)       (200,000)       (200,000)
Emergency disaster..............................................        (25,000)        (25,000)        (25,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................         (1,000)         (1,003)         (1,000)
Credit sales of acquired property...............................        (25,000)        (25,000)        (25,000)
Boll Weevil Eradication.........................................        (53,467)        (30,000)       (100,000)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................    ($2,400,693)    ($2,991,034)    ($2,627,031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                                                                
                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses   
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation...........................................      $55,019,000      $50,678,000     $219,861,000
1999 budget estimate.........................................       56,620,000       43,958,000      237,673,000
Provided in the bill.........................................       56,110,000       35,238,000      219,861,000
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation.......................................     (+1,091,000)    (-15,440,000)  ...............
    1999 budget estimate.....................................       (-510,000)     (-8,720,000)    (-17,812,000)
                                                                                                                

    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 1999, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee   
                                                             FY 1998 enacted  FY 1999 estimate     provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
  Farm ownership:                                                                                               
    Direct................................................        $8,329,000       $12,725,000       $11,228,000
    Guaranteed............................................        16,407,000         6,758,000         6,758,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        24,736,000        19,483,000        17,986,000
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:                                                                                               
    Direct................................................        36,823,000        34,150,000        34,150,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        11,617,000        19,720,000        11,000,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................        22,654,000        17,480,000        17,480,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        71,094,000        71,350,000        62,630,000
                                                           =====================================================
Boll weevil eradication...................................           472,000           432,000         1,440,000
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................           132,000           153,000           153,000
Emergency disaster........................................         6,008,000         5,900,000         5,900,000
Credit sales of acquired property.........................         3,255,000         3,260,000         3,260,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................       105,697,000       100,578,000        91,369,000
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:                                                                                                  
  Salaries and expenses...................................       209,861,000       227,673,000       209,861,000
  Administrative expenses.................................        10,000,000        10,000,000        10,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................      $219,861,000      $237,673,000      $219,861,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency

1998 appropriation......................................    $252,571,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      66,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      64,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................    -188,571,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      -2,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $64,000,000, a decrease of $188,571,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$2,000,000 below the budget request.
    The significant reduction below fiscal year 1998 is a 
result of certain costs related to the program being covered 
through the Corporation Fund.

                              Corporations

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

1998 appropriation....................................\1\ $1,584,135,000
1999 budget estimate...................................\1\ 1,504,036,000
Provided in the bill....................................   1,504,036,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     -80,099,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Estimated amounts. The 1998 appropriations bill provided such sums 
as may be necessary to administer the program. The FY 1999 proposed 
appropriation will do the same. RMA applied a portion of their 
unobligated balance to cover expenses in FY 1998 thus reducing the 
appropriation needed.

     The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace 
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment 
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 60 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative 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. At 
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers 
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and 
certain other farm programs. This coverage was available either 
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under 
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 
1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility 
for emergency crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT 
coverage required to meet program requirements. Emergency loss 
assistance does not include emergency loans or payment under 
the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered 
by FSA. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began 
phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices, 
except in those areas where there are insufficient private 
insurance providers. In 1998, the private companies serve as 
the sole source for CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies 
for additional ``buy-up'' coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for 
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 
percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater 
than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount is 
equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 50 
percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected 
market price and an amount of operating and administrative 
expenses.
    The reform legislation included the NAP program for 
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance 
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of 
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop 
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad 
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was 
established as part of the Risk Management Agency, under the 
FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has 
been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program 
activities.

                          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; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation also makes available materials and facilities 
required in connection with the storage and distribution of 
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for 
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of 
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive 
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the 
duration of conservation reserve program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996; 
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).
    The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production 
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed 
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple 
(ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for 
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The 
1996 Act also requires a milk price support program that begins 
after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31, 
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product 
processors.
    The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation 
acreage reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the 
conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve 
program (WRP), and the environmental quality incentives program 
(EQIP). Each of these programs is funded through the 
Corporation.
    The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded 
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option; 
flood risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives, 
and farmland protection programs.
    The Corporation is managed by a board of directors 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject 
to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the 
board. The board consists of six members, in addition to the 
Secretary, who are designated according to their positions in 
the Department of Agriculture.
    Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA 
state and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used 
to carry out Corporation activities.
    The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to 
$30 billion. 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 prices of agricultural commodities 
        through loans, purchases, payments, and other 
        operations.
          (b) Make available materials and facilities required 
        in connection with the production and marketing of 
        agricultural commodities.
          (c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to 
        other government agencies, foreign governments, and 
        domestic, foreign or international relief or 
        rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic 
        requirements.
          (d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or 
        disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
          (e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural 
        commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of 
        domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the 
        development of new and additional markets, marketing 
        facilities, and uses for such commodities.
          (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural 
        commodities.
          (g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs 
        authorized by law.
          (h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress 
        may specifically authorize or provide.

                 Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................      $783,507,000
1999 budget estimate..................................  \1\ 8,439,000,00
                                                                       0
Provided in the bill..................................     8,439,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................    +7,655,493,000
    1999 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 $8,439,000,000, an 
increase of $7,655,493,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 1998 and the same as the budget request.

       Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

1998 limitation.........................................    ($5,000,000)
1999 budget estimate....................................     (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (5,000,000)
Comparison:
    1998 limitation..........................(.........................)
    1999 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 1998 and the 
same as the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

1998 appropriation......................................        $693,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         719,000
Provided in the bill....................................         719,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................         +26,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

    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 
$719,000, an increase of $26,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee continues its support for the Conservation 
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The Committee understands 
that the Secretary has made a decision to dedicate a minimum of 
5.5 million acres of the Conservation Reserve Program to 
continuous sign-up (including the buffer strip initiative) and 
CREP enrollments. The Committee remains concerned about the 
geographic disparity among CREP participants and directs the 
Secretary to take all reasonable steps to ensure maximum 
flexibility in the CREP rental rate formula in order to promote 
participation from all regions of the country.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                        Conservation Operations

1998 appropriation......................................    $632,853,000
1999 budget estimate......................\1\,\2\ 742,231,000
Provided in the bill....................................     641,243,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      +8,390,000
    1999 budget estimate................................    -100,988,000

\1\ Includes funding for Watershed Surveys and Planning and technical 
assistance for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.
\2\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($10 million).

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

                          committee provisions

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $641,243,000, an increase of $8,390,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$100,988,000 below the budget request. The Committee has 
included $15,000,000 in each of the last three fiscal years for 
the grazing lands conservation initiative and expects the 
agency to continue this funding level in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee believes in the way the NRCS has provided 
vital conservation technical assistance to private landowners, 
groups, and communities since 1935. As a result, the Committee 
does not concur with the Administration's proposal to establish 
America's Private Land Conservation Legacy.
    The Committee has included a limitation that allows 130,000 
additional acres to be enrolled in the wetlands reserve program 
instead of the 164,214 additional acres as the budget proposes; 
and a limitation on the funding level for the environmental 
quality incentives program of $174,000,000. The savings from 
these limitations are used to protect funding for the 
conservation operations account.
    The Committee has provided for the continuation of the 
following projects: $300,000 to promote pastureland management 
and rotational grazing in Central New York; $250,000 to 
establish best management practices to individual farmers to 
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of 
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds; 
$500,000 for the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion 
Sediment Control; $250,000 for technical assistance to the 
Westchester Soil and Conservation District for a partnership 
with the Environmental Protection Agency to address land use 
and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound; and 
$250,000 for technical assistance for environmental restoration 
activities for Beaver Swamp Brook.
    The Committee urges the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service to provide support to initiate work on Main Ditch #1, 
Poinsett County, Arkansas.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to work with Branch 
County, Michigan to digitize county soil maps.
    The House report accompanying the fiscal year 1998 
agriculture appropriations bill expressed concern over the fact 
that while the conservation operations program accounts for 80 
percent of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
appropriations that little or no accountability is shown for 
how these funds are used by the agency. Specifically, the 
Committee is concerned about the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative (AHRI) for which funding has never been requested 
from the Congress. The Committee requests a report by December 
15, 1998 on the following: total expenditures on the American 
Heritage River Initiative by fiscal year; a list of all 
activities being carried out and/or planned in support of the 
AHRI and their associated costs; and the number of personnel 
assigned to work on this initiative and the amount of their 
time spent working on this initiative.
    Funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the 
Urban Resources Partnership and the Northwest Salmon Recovery 
Initiative are not available until justification and reprogram 
requests are approved. In addition, specific line item requests 
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the Urban 
Resources Partnership, the Northwest Salmon Initiative and any 
other initiative are to be included in the fiscal year 2000 
request under the conservation operations account.
    The Committee recognizes the participation of the NRCS in 
the Urban Resources Partnership. The Urban Resources 
Partnership (URP) is a multi-agency effort to assist urban and 
suburban communities to improve management and conservation of 
their natural resources. It has served as a catalyst to 
encourage local communities to participate in conservation 
activities. The Committee expects that the NRCS will continue 
their participation in URP.
    The Committee directs the agency to provide an additional 
$300,000 for work on erosion control from wetland plants in 
Louisiana.
    The Committee expects the agency to maintain the fiscal 
year 1998 funding and staffing levels in support of Chesapeake 
Bay activities.
    The Committee urges the NRCS to allocate environmental 
quality incentives program (EQIP) funds to the maximum extent 
possible to conduct voluntary on-farm assessments for the pork 
industry's On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program.
    The Committee is concerned that an additional bureaucratic 
layer has been added to the NRCS. The Committee directs the 
agency to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives on the activities, mission, and 
oversight authority of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service regional offices. This report shall be provided to the 
Committee along with the agency's fiscal year 2000 budget 
submission.
    The Committee expects the agency's cost of providing 
technical assistance to the EQIP will be fully funded within 
the EQIP as provided in the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
Reform Act of 1996.
    The Committee expects that the NRCS portion of the National 
Water Management Center will be funded at a level no less than 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee also expects the Department to give 
consideration to utilizing financial or educational assistance 
under EQIP for pilot work to evaluate and assess the 
effectiveness of various best management practices to assist 
livestock producers in the Bosque River watershed in Texas.
    The Committee directs the NRCS to continue support of 
ground water activities in eastern Arkansas and programs 
related to Boeuf-Tensas.
    The Committee understands that the NRCS has accepted the 
responsibility for structural deficiencies in a pipeline in the 
Powder Valley Water Control District in Oregon. The Committee 
expects the NRCS to repair the pipeline so as not to render the 
pipeline useless.
    The Committee is concerned that the cover crop requirement 
of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) signup in several 
states has become increasingly detailed, diverse, complex and 
expensive for landowners and taxpayers. Consequently, the 
Committee is concerned that intended environmental incentives 
have been weakened. The Committee encourages State Technical 
Committees to give serious consideration to the cost of 
establishing covers compared to the benefits derived from these 
covers. State Technical Committees should recommend cover 
enhancement practices that result in fair and reasonable costs 
to producers. The Committee encourages the Department to 
provide as much flexibility as possible to producers in the 
timing of cover establishment and the seeding options offered 
to producers. In determining cover requirements, the Department 
should seek to minimize the costs to producers.

                     watershed surveys and planning

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation....................................       $11,190,000
1999 budget estimate..................................             (\1\)
Provided in the bill..................................         9,545,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation................................        -1,645,000
    1999 budget estimate..............................        +9,545,000
                                                                        
\1\ Proposed to be funded under conservation operations.                

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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $9,545,000, a decrease of $1,645,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998. The budget request 
proposed to fund these activities under conservation 
operations.

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

1998 appropriation......................................    $101,036,000
1999 budget estimate....................................  \1\ 49,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      97,850,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -3,186,000
    1999 budget estimate................................     +48,850,000

\1\ Technical assistance proposed to be funded under conservation 
operations.

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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $97,850,000, a decrease 
of $3,186,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 
and an increase of $48,850,000 above the budget request. 
Language is included which limits the amount spent on technical 
assistance to not more than $47,000,000. The Committee expects 
more funding to be spent on completing ongoing projects and 
reducing the backlog of watershed projects.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following projects: New Town Hoffman Flood Control 
Project in Chemung County, New York; the four pilot projects in 
North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; 
Tulpehocken Creek Watershed Project in Berks County and Lebanon 
County, Pennsylvania; the 5-D Project in Yadkin County, North 
Carolina; the Stillwater Creek Flood Project in Oklahoma; and 
the Deadman Creek/Bullard Creek Watershed Project in Lake 
County, Oregon.

                 resource conservation and development

1998 appropriation......................................     $34,377,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      34,377,000
Provided in the bill....................................      35,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        +623,000
    1999 budget estimate................................        +623,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $35,000,000, an increase of 
$623,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an 
increase of $623,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
expects the USDA to fund new RC&D areas.

                      forestry incentives program

1998 appropriation......................................      $6,325,000
1999 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -6,325,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

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

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

1998 appropriation......................................        $588,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         611,000
Provided in the bill....................................         611,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................         +23,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$611,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and 
other rural development programs: capacity building to assist 
rural communities in the states of New York and Florida 
(through the Florida Counties Foundation) to access state and 
Federal programs to address needs in rural areas; the Ohio 
Rural Enterprise Program; a water purification system for the 
City of Plaquemine, cleanup of atrazine concentration for water 
district 3 in Iberville Parish, and improvements to the Colyell 
water system, Livingston Parish, (Louisiana); an energy 
cooperative development program in conjunction with the State 
of California Energy Commission, assistance to the Sacramento 
Valley Resource Conservation and Development District 
(California) to establish a nature tourism program; a 
participation loan program and labor market analysis for the 
Tehama (California) Local Development Corporation for small 
business development; designation of Tehama County (California) 
as a Champion Community; the Lake Marion (South Carolina) 
Regional Water Agency potable water program; continued support 
for the St. Johns-New Madrid (Missouri) Floodway Flood Control 
Project; construction of the Lincoln County (Georgia) 
Conference Center; the Paseo del Canon drainage canal, Taos, 
New Mexico redirection of storm waters; Rural Enterprises, 
Inc., Durant, OK., for rural economic development; The 
Enterprise Center, Bradford County (Pennsylvania) for rural 
economic and business development; the Lackawanna Junior 
College (Pennsylvania) job training program; the New River 
Valley Planning District (Virginia) Commission's Jacksonville 
Center small business incubator project; feasibility studies by 
Wytheville Community College, Southwest Virginia Community 
College and Mountain Empire Community College (Virginia) for 
small business incubators; revolving loan funds for the Fayette 
County Industrial Development Corporation, the City of 
Scottsburg and the City of Aurora (Indiana); the Central Valley 
(California) Assessment Project for current and long-term 
trends in agriculture; the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund 
expansion of financial and technical assistance to businesses 
in northeastern Minnesota; the Western Massachusetts Food 
Processing Center; the Western Massachusetts Industrial 
Development Equity Pool; the Self Help Credit Union Emerging 
Rural Enterprises Loan Fund in North Carolina; the Kentucky 
Highlands Investment Corporation venture capital fund 
expansion; the Mountain Association for Community Economic 
Development (Kentucky) Strategic Capital Fund; the Lee County 
(Kentucky) Vegetable Co-op facility expansion program; the 
Secondary Wood Industry Revolving Loan Fund in the Cumberland 
Valley (Kentucky) Development District; the Hermiston (Oregon) 
Development Corporation surface water feasibility study; the 
Northumberland County (Pennsylvania) Multi-Use Industrial Park; 
the Fulton County (Pennsylvania) Medical Center reconstruction 
project; County of Lamar (Alabama) engineering and design of 
drinking water project; improvements to the Battle Mountain 
(Nevada) wastewater treatment facility; the Pine River 
Irrigation District domestic water system in LaPlata County 
(Colorado); the Lonoke/White County (Arkansas) water supply 
project and the Arkansas State University value-added export 
center; acquisition of a new water tank and the replacement of 
old water lines by the Town of Trinity, Morgan County 
(Alabama); the Renewable Research Institute (multi-state) 
development and commercialization of value-added products; and 
the Connecticut Energy Cooperative.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.
    The Committee encourages the Department to assist 
appropriate organizations in planning and establishing a 
national farmers' marketing cooperative.
    The Committee is aware of critical water supply problems in 
the Municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico and has provided bill 
language allowing the municipality to be eligible for 
assistance under the rural water and sewer programs.
    The Committee also provides bill language making the city 
of Big Spring, Texas eligible for rural housing programs of the 
Rural Housing Service. An anomaly in the calculation of the 
city's population caused by the presence of several Federal 
facilities currently makes the city ineligible for rural 
housing assistance.
    The Committee has been informed of unintentional effects of 
certain definitions regarding eligibility for rural development 
programs in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996. USDA reports that some rural entities that would 
otherwise be eligible for loans and grants are now ineligible 
as a result of these definitions. USDA reports that the problem 
appears to be most acute in the northeast, but other states 
such as Missouri and Illinois have also reported problems. USDA 
also reports that in New Jersey, the number of eligible areas 
has been reduced by 55 percent. The Committee has provided bill 
language to suspend certain eligibility definitions for fiscal 
year 1999. The Committee directs USDA to work with the 
authorizing Committees to address this problem and develop 
appropriate solutions.
    The Committee supports efforts to develop capacity and 
expects the Secretary to develop regulations to develop the 
capacity and ability of private, non-profit community-based 
housing and community development organizations, and rural 
communities to undertake projects to improve housing, community 
facilities, community and economic development projects in 
rural areas. The Committee expects this program to be available 
to qualified national and multi-state private, non-profit 
intermediary organizations that propose to carry out a program 
of technical assistance to eligible entities that includes 
loans, grants or pre-development assistance. The intermediary 
organizations would provide matching funds from other sources 
in an amount not less than Federal funds. The Committee expects 
the Department to publish the regulations in final form not 
later than September 30, 1999.
    The Committee understands that the Rural Utility Service 
has approved a grant application and a loan application for the 
City of Gridley, California. Because the project will provide 
sewer benefits to the community as a whole, the Committee 
directs the Service to allow the debt service on the loan to be 
allocated to all users in the sewer service area through a 
Certificate of Participation.

                  rural community advancement program

1998 Appropriations.....................................    $652,197,000
1999 Budget estimate....................................     715,172,000
Provided in the bill....................................     745,172,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     +92,975,000
    1999 budget estimate................................     +30,000,000

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will 
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to 
applicant needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account and the 3 percent of the funding in 
the ``Federally recognized Indian tribe'' account, funding will 
be allocated to rural development State directors for their 
priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State directors are 
authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount 
in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal 
year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for 
the State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds 
allowed to be reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural 
community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, 
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated 
for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, 
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities 
providing essential services to rural residents. Such 
facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development such as fire and rescue services, health 
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social, 
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for 
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open 
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the 
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 
funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), would be used in conjunction with the existing 
direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of 
community facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and 
community centers. Grants will be targeted to the lowest income 
communities. Communities that have lower population and income 
levels would receive a higher cost-share contribution through 
these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the 
cost of developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made not to exceed 
$1,500,000 annually to public bodies and private nonprofit 
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made 
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train, 
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and 
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct 
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development; and to establish centers for training, technology, 
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the 
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 309A, and 310B 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water 
and waste development costs. Development loans are made to 
associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit 
basis, municipalities and similar organizations, generally 
designated as public or quasipublic agencies that propose 
projects for the development, storage, treatment, purification, 
and distribution of domestic water or the collection, 
treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may 
not exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects 
and can supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by 
applicants to pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310(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 and management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                          Committee Provisions

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

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM                  
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1998      FY 1999     Committee 
                                      level       estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:                                                                
    Community facility loans:                                           
        Guaranteed...............         $613            0            0
        Direct...................       17,273      $27,480      $27,480
    Community facility grants....        9,176        8,237        8,237
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, housing......       27,062       35,717       35,717
                                  ======================================
Business:                                                               
    Business and industry loans:                                        
        Guaranteed...............        9,700       10,200       10,200
        Direct...................            0            0            0
    Rural business enterprise                                           
     grants......................       38,193       40,300       40,300
    Rural business opportunity                                          
     grants......................            0            0            0
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, business.....       47,893       50,500       50,500
                                  ======================================
Utilities:                                                              
    Water and waste disposal                                            
     loans:                                                             
        Guaranteed...............            0            0            0
        Direct...................       67,442      126,209      156,209
    Water and waste disposal                                            
     grants......................      507,200      500,000      500,000
    Solid waste management grants        2,600        2,746        2,746
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, utilities....      577,242      628,955      658,955
                                  ======================================
          Total, loans and grants     $652,197     $715,172     $745,172
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Rural Housing Service

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

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 loan level.......................................  ($4,219,527,000)
1999 budget estimate..................................   (4,347,116,000)
Provided in the bill..................................   (4,235,601,000)
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 loan level...................................     (+16,074,000)
    1999 budget estimate..............................    (-111,515,000)
                                                                        

    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 persons in rural areas. These 
loans, made with funds advanced by private lenders, are 
repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor housing insured 
loans are made either to a farm owner or to a public or private 
nonprofit organization to provide modest living quarters and 
related facilities for domestic farm labor. Loan programs are 
limited to rural areas which include towns, villages, and other 
places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not part 
of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a 
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the 
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical 
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and 
moderate-income borrowers.

                          committee provisions

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                           FY 1998 level     FY 1999 estimate      provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                   
    Low-income family housing (sec 502):                                                                        
        Direct.........................................       ($1,000,000)       ($1,000,000)         ($930,600)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)
    Rental housing (sec 515)...........................          (128,640)          (100,000)          (100,000)
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................           (19,700)          (150,000)          (125,000)
    Housing repair (sec 504)...........................           (30,000)           (25,001)           (25,001)
    Farm labor (sec 514)...............................           (15,000)           (32,108)           (20,000)
    Credit sales of acquired property..................           (25,000)           (30,007)           (25,000)
    Site loans (sec 524)...............................              (600)            (5,000)            (5,000)
    Self-help housing land development fund............              (587)            (5,000)            (5,000)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan authorization........................       ($4,219,527)       ($4,347,116)       ($4,235,601)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                                                                
                                                            Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                                                              subsidy            subsidy            expenses    
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation.....................................       $218,042,000         $8,100,000       $354,785,000
1999 budget estimate...................................        196,935,000          6,180,000        367,857,000
Provided in the bill...................................        181,255,000          5,600,000        354,785,000
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation.................................        -37,787,000         -2,500,000  .................
    1999 budget estimate...............................        -15,680,000           -580,000        -13,072,000
                                                                                                                

    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 1999, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee strongly urges the Rural Housing Service to 
continue participation in the leveraged loan program of New 
York and other states where alternative procedures are needed 
to meet the needs of affordable housing in rural areas.
    The following table reflects the cost of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 1998 amount reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by OMB.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                           FY 1998 level     FY 1999 estimate      provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Single family (sec 502):                                                                                    
        Direct.........................................           $128,100           $118,200           $110,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................              6,900              2,700              2,700
    Housing repair (sec 504)...........................             10,300              8,808              8,808
    Farm labor (sec 514)...............................              7,388             16,706             10,406
    Rental housing (sec 515)...........................             68,745             48,250             48,250
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................              1,200              3,480              2,900
    Credit sales of acquired property..................              3,492              4,672              3,492
    Housing site dev. (sec 524)........................                  0                 17                 17
    Self-help housing land development fund............                 17                282                282
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies............................           $226,142           $203,115           $186,855
RHIF expenses:                                                                                                  
    Administrative expenses............................           $354,785           $367,857           $354,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       rental assistance program

1998 appropriation .....................................    $541,397,000
1999 budget estimate....................................     583,397,000
Provided in the bill....................................     583,397,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     +42,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $583,397,000, an increase of $42,000,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the 
budget request.

                  mutual and self-help housing grants

1998 appropriation......................................     $26,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      26,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      26,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................................
    1999 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 $26,000,000, the same amount as 
available in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.

                 rural community fire protection grants

1998 appropriation......................................      $2,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................               0
Provided in the bill....................................               0
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -2,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

    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

    Funding for rural community fire protection grants in 
fiscal year 1999 has been requested in the budget of the Forest 
Service.

                    rural housing assistance grants

1998 appropriation......................................     $45,720,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      46,900,000
Provided in the bill....................................      41,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -4,720,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      -5,900,000

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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $41,000,000, a decrease 
of $4,720,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 1998 
and a decrease of $5,900,000 below the budget request.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                                                                
                                                             Administrative                                     
                                                                expenses          Transfers      Total expenses 
                                                                                                                
1998 level................................................       $57,958,000    ($354,785,000)    ($412,743,000)
1999 budget estimate......................................        60,978,000     (367,857,000)     (428,835,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        57,958,000     (354,785,000)     (412,743,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 level............................................  ................  ................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..................................        -3,020,000     (-13,072,000)     (-16,092,000)
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Housing 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 account for 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 Housing Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $57,958,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$3,020,000 below the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

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

              rural development loan fund program account

                          estimated loan level

1998 loan level.........................................   ($35,000,000)
1999 budget estimate....................................    (35,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (35,000,000)
Comparison:
    1998 loan level..........................(.........................)
    1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, 
community development corporations private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of 
improving business, industry, community facilities, and 
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in 
rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1999, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $35,000,000, the same as 
provided in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget 
request.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                                         Direct loan     Administrative 
                                           subsidy          expenses    
                                                                        
1998 appropriation..................       $16,888,000        $3,482,000
1999 budget estimate................        17,622,000         3,547,000
Provided in the bill................        17,622,000         3,499,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation..............          +734,000           +17,000
    1999 budget estimates...........  ................           -48,000
                                                                        

            rural economic development loans program account

                          estimated loan level

1998 loan level.........................................   ($25,000,000)
1999 budget estimate....................................    (15,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (15,000,000)
Comparison:
    1998 loan level.....................................   (-10,000,000)
    1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $15,000,000, a 
decrease of $10,000,000 below the level for fiscal year 1998 
and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee has provided language, requested by the 
Administration, to use earnings generated by the interest 
differential on voluntary cushion of credit payments made by 
Rural Utilities Service borrowers to provide necessary loan 
subsidies for rural economic development loans. By using these 
earnings for subsidy budget authority, additional loans funds 
will be available to rural communities. The discretionary cost 
of these loans is offset by reductions to rural economic 
development grants made from the cushion of credit.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                     Direct loan subsidy
1998 appropriation......................................      $5,978,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       3,783,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,783,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -2,195,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

 alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund

                         cooperative agreements

1998 appropriation......................................      $7,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -7,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................     -10,000,000

    The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Act of 1990, subtitle G of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
and Trade Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 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

    The Committee does not provide funding for the Alternative 
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund for 
fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee notes that, according to USDA, $34,237,629 
has been invested in AARC with only $247,713.75 in repayments 
from its beginning in 1993 through the end of fiscal year 1997.

                  rural cooperative development grants

1998 appropriation......................................      $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       5,700,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,300,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        +300,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      -2,400,000

    Rural Cooperative Development Grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-federal sources. Grants are competitive and 
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State department of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $3,300,000, an increase of 
$300,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and a 
decrease of $2,400,000, below the budget request.
    Of the funds provided, not to exceed $1,300,000 is provided 
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                                                                
                                                                                Transfer from                   
                                                              Appropriation     loan accounts    Total, RBS, S&E
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation........................................       $25,680,000      ($3,482,000)     ($29,162,000)
1999 budget estimate......................................        26,396,000       (3,547,000)      (29,943,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        25,680,000       (3,499,000)      (29,179,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation....................................  ................         (+17,000)         (+17,000)
    1999 budget estimate..................................          -716,000         (-48,000)        (-764,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Development Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$25,680,000, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 1998 
and a decrease of $716,000 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 telephone programs of 
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water 
and waste programs of the former Rural Development 
Administration.
    The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in 
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering 
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs 
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially 
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of 
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides 
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas. 
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local 
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local 
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the 
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by 
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, 
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

1998 loan level.........................................($1,420,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (1,075,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (1,561,500,000)
Comparison:
    1998 loan level.....................................    +141,500,000
    1999 budget estimate................................    +486,500,000

    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 telecommunications loan program account:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee   
                                                             FY 1998 enacted  FY 1999 estimate     provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification and telecommunications loans program                                                      
 account.                                                                                                       
Loan authorizations:                                                                                            
    Direct loans:                                                                                               
        Electric 5%.......................................    ($125,000,000)     ($55,000,000)     ($71,500,000)
        Telecommunications 5%.............................      (75,000,000)      (50,000,000)      (75,000,000)
        Treasury rate: Telecommunications.................     (300,000,000)     (300,000,000)     (300,000,000)
        Muni-rate: Electric...............................     (500,000,000)     (250,000,000)     (295,000,000)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................   (1,000,000,000)     (655,000,000)     (741,500,000)
                                                           =====================================================
FFB loans:                                                                                                      
        Electric, regular.................................     (300,000,000)     (300,000,000)     (700,000,000)
        Telecommunications................................     (120,000,000)     (120,000,000)     (120,000,000)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................     (420,000,000)     (420,000,000)     (820,000,000)
                                                           =====================================================
          Total, Loan authorizations......................  ($1,420,000,000)  ($1,075,000,000)  ($1,561,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee   
                                                             FY 1998 enacted  FY 1999 estimate     provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
      Direct loans:                                                                                             
    Electric 5%...........................................        $9,325,000        $7,172,000        $9,325,000
    Telecommunications 5%.................................         2,940,000         4,895,000         7,342,000
        Treasury rate: Telecommunications.................            60,000           810,000           810,000
        Muni-rate: Electric...............................        21,100,000        21,900,000        25,842,000
        FFB loans: Regular Electric.......................         2,760,000                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies...............................        36,185,000        34,777,000        43,319,000
                                                           =====================================================
RETLP administrative expenses.............................        29,982,000        32,000,000        29,982,000
      Total, Rural electrification and telecommunications                                                       
       loans program account..............................       $66,167,000       $66,777,000        73,301,000
(Loan authorization)......................................  ($1,420,000,000)  ($1,075,000,000)  ($1,561,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1999, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

1998 loan level.........................................  ($175,000,000)
1999 budget estimate....................................   (175,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................   (175,000,000)
Comparison:
    1998 loan level..........................(.........................)
    1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a 
loan level of $175,000,000, the same as the level for fiscal 
year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal 
year 1998 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock 
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
    The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language 
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank 
Liquidating Account to pay for loan subsidies or administrative 
expenses of the Rural Telephone Bank.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                                                        
                                         Direct loan     Administrative 
                                           subsidy          expenses    
                                                                        
1998 appropriation..................        $3,710,000        $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate................             (\1\)             (\2\)
Provided in the bill................         4,638,000         3,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation..............          +928,000  ................
    1999 budget estimate............  ................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ up to $4,638,000 is to be derived by transfer from unobligated      
  balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.             
\2\ up to $3,000,000 is to be derived from transfer from unobligated    
  balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.             

    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 1999, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

                                                                                                                
                                                                    Loan level     Subsidy level      Grants    
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation..............................................    $150,000,000         $30,000     $12,500,000
1999 budget estimate............................................     150,000,000         180,000      15,000,000
Provided in the bill............................................     150,000,000         180,000      10,000,000
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation..........................................  ..............        +150,000      -2,500,000
    1999 budget estimates.......................................  ..............  ..............      -5,000,000
                                                                                                                


    The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was 
established by the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990 (104 
STAT. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This program 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. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $10,180,000, a decrease 
of $2,350,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 
and a decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program: the Cayuga County (New York) Telecommunications 
Project, the Southeast Community College (Kentucky) expansion 
of the distance learning complex and respiratory/radiography 
program; the Indiana State University Degree Link program; and 
the San Bernardino County (California) Medical Center 
telemedicine program.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                                                                
                                                                                Transfer from                   
                                                              Appropriation     loan accounts    Total, RUS, S&E
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation........................................       $33,000,000     ($32,982,000)     ($65,982,000)
1999 budget estimate......................................        33,445,000      (35,000,000)      (68,445,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        33,000,000      (32,982,000)      (65,982,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation....................................  ................  ................  ................
    1999 budget estimate..................................          -445,000      (-2,018,000)      (-2,463,000)
                                                                                                                

    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 
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Fund and the 
Rural Telephone Bank 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 an appropriation of $33,000,000, the 
same as the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a 
decrease of $445,000 below the budget request.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

1998 appropriation......................................        $554,000
1999 budget estimate....................................         573,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        -554,000
    1999 budget estimate................................        -573,000

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee has included no separate funding for the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition and Consumer 
Services. The Administration annually requests additional 
funding for the Food and Nutrition Service which is the single 
agency for which the Under Secretary has oversight 
responsibility. Given the extremely tight funding situation and 
the need to maintain resources to the Food and Nutrition 
Service, the Committee has provided $554,000 for the Office of 
the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services 
within the Food Program Administration account for fiscal year 
1999. This will enable the Administration to best decide where 
resources are needed. The $554,000 is the same amount for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Consumer and Nutrition 
Services in fiscal year 1998.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 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.
    The program includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. The program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity 
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health 
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants, 
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by 
providing food packages designed to supplement each 
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking. 
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health 
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other 
approved methods which a cooperating state health agency may 
select.
    The Commodity Assistance Program (CAP).--This program was 
created by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
(P.L. 104-37), by consolidating funding for the commodity 
supplemental food program (CSFP), the emergency food assistance 
program (TEFAP), and the soup kitchens and food banks program 
(SK/FB).
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding 
women with low incomes who reside in approved project areas. In 
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects 
directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to state agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.
    Nutritious agricultural commodities are also provided 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.
    Farmers Market Nutrition Program.--This program provides 
(WIC or WIC-eligible) participants with coupons to purchase 
fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and 
vegetables, from farmers markets. The program is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or 
WIC-eligible participants and (2) increase the awareness and 
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
    Food Gleaning and Recovery.--Under this program FNS works 
with States and community-based groups to develop innovative 
ways of increasing the gleaning and recovery of wholesome food 
for human consumption.
    Food Program Administration.--This account represents all 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion (CNPP). As of September 30, 1997, there were 1,612 
full-time permanent and 82 part-time and temporary employees in 
the agency. There were 585 in the Washington headquarters and 
1,109 in the field, which includes 816 in seven regional 
offices and the balance in six food stamp compliance offices; 
one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; one 
administrative review office; and 70 field offices. The Center 
oversees improvements in and revisions to the food nutrition 
guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing and 
coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to 
improve the health of all Americans.
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply 
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of 
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of 
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide 
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from 
general and continued hunger.

                        child nutrition programs

                                                                                                                
                                                               Direct         Transfer from      Total program  
                                                           appropriation        section 32           level      
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation.....................................     $2,616,425,000   ($5,151,391,000)   ($7,767,816,000)
1999 budget estimate...................................      3,897,703,000    (5,332,194,000)    (9,229,897,000)
Provided in the bill...................................      4,170,497,000    (5,048,150,000)    (9,218,647,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation.................................     +1,554,072,000     (-103,241,000)   (+1,450,831,000)
    1999 budget estimate...............................       +272,794,000     (-284,044,000)      (-11,250,000)
                                                                                                                


    Working through state agencies, the Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS) provides Federal assistance in cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the 
school lunch program; the school breakfast program; the summer 
food service program; and child and adult care food programs. 
In addition, the special milk program provides funding for milk 
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit 
child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally 
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either 
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level. 
FNS provides cash subsidies to state administered programs and 
directly administers the program in the states which have 
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. Grants are 
also made for nutritional training and surveys and for state 
administrative expenses. Under current legislation, most of 
these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates 
established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts 
actually served by the states.
    The 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.
    Special Milk Program.--Through the special milk program, 
funds are provided to state agencies to reimburse eligible 
participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk 
consumed. Under Public Law 97-35, participation in the special 
milk program is restricted to schools and institutions that do 
not participate in another meal service program authorized by 
the Child Nutrition or School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 
1986, based on authority in Public Law 99-661, children in 
split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do 
not have access to the meal service programs operating in those 
schools may participate in the program.

                          committee provisions

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 
total of $9,218,647,000, an increase of $1,450,831,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$11,250,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $4,170,497,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$5,048,150,000 is by transfer from section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:
    School lunch program................................  $5,384,452,000
    School breakfast program............................   1,396,955,000
    Child and adult care food program...................   1,611,520,000
    Summer food service program.........................     294,414,000
    Special milk program................................      18,055,000
    State administrative expenses.......................     118,074,000
    Commodity procurement and computer support..........     370,029,000
    School meals initiative.............................       8,000,000
    Food safety education...............................       2,000,000
    Coordinated review effort...........................       4,300,000
    Nutrition education and training....................       3,750,000
    Computer support and procurement....................       7,098,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................  $9,218,647,000

    The Committee provides $8,000,000 for the School Meals 
Initiative. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food 
service training grants to states; $1,600,000 for technical 
assistance materials; $1,000,000 for the National Food Service 
Management Institute cooperative agreement for food service; 
$400,000 for print and electronic food service resource 
systems, and not more than $1,000,000 for other activities.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

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

1998 appropriation......................................  $3,924,000,000
1999 budget estimate....................................   4,081,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................   3,924,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................................
    1999 budget estimate................................    -157,000,000

    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 Commodity Assistance Program 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.

                          committee provisions

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC), the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $3,924,000,000, the same as the amount 
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $157,000,000 
below the budget request. The President's budget estimated a 
carryover in the WIC program of $130 million. The latest 
estimates from USDA indicate a carryover of $180 million. 
Through the first six months of fiscal year 1998, WIC 
participation has averaged 7.3 million per month. In addition, 
it is expected that the enactment of the WIC reauthorization 
bill will produce savings and promote efficiency in the 
program. The total includes up to $12,000,000 for the farmers' 
market nutrition program.
    The Committee notes that the authorization for the WIC 
program is currently being addressed in the House Education and 
Workforce Committee. The reauthorization bill addresses many of 
the major concerns about the WIC program including possible 
mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse. The authorizing bill 
recommends: extending the program through 2003; requiring 
states to limit vendor participation by using prices charged 
for WIC foods in comparison to other store prices for same 
foods; increasing maximum penalties for vendor violations from 
$5,000 to $25,000; requiring physical presence and income 
documentation for program participants; enabling states to 
retain recoveries for a longer period to provide an incentive 
for more anti-fraud activity by states; codifying provisions 
eliminating state authority to spend forward unspent WIC food 
funds; disqualifying stores found to have trafficked in WIC 
coupons; and codifying a provision from the agriculture 
appropriations bill requiring states to award infant formula 
contracts to the company that offers the lowest net price.
    The Committee is concerned that the WIC program remains 
vulnerable to fraud and abuse from vendors authorized to 
transact WIC food vouchers.
    The Committee includes bill language requiring the 
Department of Agriculture to publish a final rule related to 
vendor fraud in the WIC program. The Department attempted to 
write vendor fraud rules in 1990, but withdrew the rules due to 
opposition. Since then, there has not been an attempt by the 
Department to promulgate rules on vendor fraud. Therefore, the 
bill language contains a provision that withholds $2,000,000 of 
funds appropriated to Food Program Administration until a final 
rule is implemented to address vendor fraud in the WIC program.
    In order to contain costs in the WIC program, the Committee 
encourages the Department to urge States, in selecting retail 
stores for participation into the WIC program, to consider 
prices that stores charge for foods under the WIC program as 
compared to prices that other stores charge for the same foods. 
The Committee directs the Department to establish procedures to 
insure that any retail store selected for participation in the 
WIC program does not subsequently raise prices to levels that 
would otherwise make the store ineligible.
    The Committee is concerned about the lack of accurate and 
timely information regarding spending in the WIC program. The 
Committee directs the USDA to reduce to 120 days the time 
period in which states are required to report on monthly 
obligation of funds.
    During the appropriations hearing process, it became 
apparent to the Committee that the methodology and data used in 
the WIC program to attempt to estimate the number of eligibles, 
participation and funding levels are seriously flawed. The 
Committee directs the Department to review the methodology and 
data used by USDA to estimate participation and funding levels 
for the WIC program. The Committee expects a report, with 
recommendations for improvements, to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives no later than 
April 1, 1999.
    The Committee has included two provisions requested by the 
President which gives the Secretary some flexibility in 
distributing WIC funds. The first provision provides for an 
adjustment of fiscal year 1999 state allocations by requiring 
the Secretary to reduce each state allocation by the amount of 
food funds that the state chooses to spend forward from fiscal 
year 1998. The second provision addresses the reallocation of 
fiscal year 1998 recovered funds and allows the Secretary to 
allocate funds first to states to maintain stability funding 
levels and then to states whose funding is less than their fair 
share of funds.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

                           food stamp program

1998 appropriation...................................... $25,140,479,000
1999 budget estimate....................................  24,701,806,000
Provided in the bill....................................  22,591,806,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................  -2,548,673,000
    1999 budget estimate................................  -2,110,000,000

    The food stamp program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service 
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which 
are updated annually.
    Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for 
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or 
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal 
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained 
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the 
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 
By the end of fiscal year 1997, twenty-five States had 
operating EBT systems. They are Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Georgia, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minniesta, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennyslvania, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Eight of 
those were statewide: Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah. All other 
States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT 
systems.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.

                          administrative costs

    All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for 
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality 
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 
Federal government and the states on a 50-50 basis.
    In addition, state agencies which reduce quality control 
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, state agencies 
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the 
program on Indian reservations. The food stamp program is in 
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the 
District of Columbia.
    The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the 
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on 
states which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed 
target.
    Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a 
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives 
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a 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 $22,591,806,000, a decrease of $2,548,673,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease 
of $2,110,000,000 below the budget request. The total amount 
includes $100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 
1999. The Committee provides $90,000,000 for the emergency food 
assistance program.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
    The President's Mid-session review of the budget states 
that ``estimated outlays for food stamps are lower than in the 
budget by $0.7 billion in 1998 and $1.2 billion in 1999, 
reflecting a downward revision in average participation level 
and benefits costs.'' The fiscal year 1999 funding level for 
food stamps includes this $1.2 billion reduction.
    The Committee is encouraged by the implementation of EBT 
systems around the country and supports the goal that all 
states must be operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee, no later than 
120 days after enactment of this Act, on efforts by the Food 
and Nutrition Service to ensure that all states will be 
operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee remains 
concerned about security problems with EBT cards and directs 
the Secretary to report to the Committee on what is being done 
to ensure that EBT cards being issued include anti-fraud 
mechanisms such as fine line printing and holograms.
    The Committee believes the agency should focus more on 
preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food 
stamps. Last year, the Committee urged the Food and Nutrition 
Service, FNS, to require preauthorization visits for all high 
risk stores. The Committee is disappointed that more 
preauthorization visits have not been required and directs the 
agency to work with its field offices to ensure that all new 
high risk retailer applicants are visited before they are 
authorized to participate in the program.
    In addition, the Committee urges the agency to conduct more 
sweeps to detect ineligible retailers in the program. An 
Inspector General audit found that field offices have accepted 
reauthorization applications without verifying significant 
changes in sales and did not remove prior store owners from the 
Store Tracking and Redemption System database. The Committee 
believes FNS must do more to identify ineligible retailers and 
remove them from the program. Verification of sales changes and 
updating the database are two methods that should be used to 
prevent fraud in the program.
    The Committee also agrees with the Inspector General 
recommendation that the National office needs to provide more 
direction and oversight to regional and field offices and that 
half of all field offices should be reviewed each year. FNS 
established new oversight procedures as a result of an OIG 1992 
retailer audit, but does not enforce them.
    Obesity and diseases resulting in part from obesity such as 
diabetes are serious and increasing problems for Native 
Americans. The Committee is concerned that the nutritional 
content of commodities provided to Native Americans through the 
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations may exacerbate 
the incidence of obesity and diabetes among Native Americans. 
The Committee encourages the continuation of consultations 
between USDA, the Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish and 
undertake specific improvements in the program as recommended 
by IHS and CDC to improve the nutritional content of 
commodities and provide adequate nutrition education to Native 
Americans. The Department should report back to the Committee 
on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives by 
January 15, 1999, on the outcome of the consultations and steps 
taken or that will be taken to make improvements in the 
program.

                     Commodity Assistance Programs

1998 appropriation......................................    $141,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 317,081,000
Provided in the bill....................................     131,000,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     -10,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................    -186,081,000

\1\ Includes funding for TEFAP, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 
Elderly Feeding Program, Pacific Island Assistance, WIC Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program, and the Food Gleaning Program.

    The Commodity Assistance Program was established in fiscal 
year 1996 by the Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-37). 
The Commodity Assistance Program includes: the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and administrative expenses 
of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (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.
    Food Gleaning and Recovery.--Under this program FNS works 
with States and community-based groups to develop innovative 
ways of increasing the gleaning and recovery of wholesome food 
for human consumption.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized the commodity 
supplemental food program through fiscal year 2002. In 
addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4 million pounds of 
nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese to the program 
annually, subject to availability.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $131,000,000 for 
the commodity assistance program. This is a decrease of 
$10,000,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $186,081,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that there is a $10,000,000 carryover 
in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and has adjusted the 
appropriation by that amount.
    The Committee has included $45,000,000 for administration 
of the emergency food assistance program. These funds may be 
used for administration purposes or for food costs at the 
discretion of the states.
    The Committee believes that there is an abundant and 
affordable supply of surplus prepared food, but a lack of 
distribution and transportation capacity, especially 
refrigerated vehicles. The Committee urges the Department to 
explore and support programs that can initiate and expand food 
recovery and distribution.

              food donations programs for selected groups

1998 appropriation......................................    $141,165,000
1999 budget estimate....................................           (\1\)
Provided in the bill....................................     141,081,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................         -84,000
    1999 budget estimate................................    +141,081,000

\1\ The Administration's budget proposes to include $141,081,000 for 
these programs under the Commodity Assistance Program in FY 1999.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $141,081,000, a decrease 
of $84,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
an increase of $141,081,000 above the budget request. Included 
in the amount is $140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the 
elderly.

                      food program administration

1998 appropriation......................................    $107,505,000
1999 budget estimate....................................     111,848,000
Provided in the bill....................................     108,311,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................        +806,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      -3,537,000

    The food program administration appropriation provides for 
all of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition 
Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; special 
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
(WIC); the commodity assistance program, including the 
commodity supplemental food program, and administrative 
expenses of the emergency food assistance program, the 
nutrition program for the elderly, Pacific Island Assistance, 
the Food Stamp Program and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the 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 has provided 
$108,311,000, an increase of $806,000 above the amount 
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $3,537,000 
below the budget request.
    Included in this amount is $2,470,000 for the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, an increase of $252,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1998. The Committee has 
included funding to support the publication of the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans.
    The Committee has maintained all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service's Food and 
Consumer Economics Division. The Committee does not reduce the 
funding available for studies and evaluations. Full discretion 
on how these funds are to be spent has been left to the 
Department. The Committee believes that consolidating these 
funds under ERS is prudent and fiscally responsible. It is 
expected that FNS staff, as well as staff from other 
agencies,will provide input and continue to work with ERS staff 
to assure that all program and policy needs of the Department 
are being met.
    The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to 
acquire commodities from local farmer's markets and 
cooperatives for nutrition programs to the maximum extent 
possible.
    The Committee reaffirms the critical need for USDA to be 
consistent when communicating nutrition advice and dietary 
guidance to the public. For example, rigid dietary 
recommendations for sugar intake, as reflected in the Food 
Guide Pyramid, contradict the latest scientific advice in the 
1995 Dietary Guidelines. In written testimony, USDA 
acknowledged that ``while at first glance these two messages 
might appear to be inconsistent.'' That acknowledgement of 
inconsistency illustrates this point.
    Unlike the Dietary Guidelines which must be reviewed by 
outside expert scientists every five years to ensure that they 
reflect the latest science, the Food Guide Pyramid has not been 
subject to a similar scientific review process since its 
initial 1992 publication.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to review, evaluate 
and, where appropriate for scientific accuracy and consistency, 
revise the Food Guide Pyramid and all its accompanying 
explanatory materials, including the USDA Home & Garden 
Bulletin #252, as well as all pertinent children's educational 
materials, to ensure that it reflects identical scientific 
messages on dietary and nutritional behaviors as those in the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Committee further directs 
the Secretary to develop and present a plan for an external 
scientific review process of the Pyramid's content by outside 
experts to the Committee within 90 after the enactment of the 
fiscal year 1999 agriculture appropriations bill.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

                                                                                                                
                                                                                 Transfer from                  
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS   
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation............................................    $131,295,000    ($4,266,000)    ($135,561,000)
1999 budget estimate..........................................     141,087,000     (4,506,000)     (145,593,000)
Provided in the bill..........................................     131,295,000     (4,266,000)     (135,561,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation........................................  ..............  (.............                  
                                                                                        .....)  (...............
                                                                                                            ...)
    1999 budget estimate......................................      -9,792,000      (-240,000)     (-10,032,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $131,295,000 and transfers of 
$4,266,000 for a total program level of $135,561,000, the same 
as the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of 
$10,032,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs that any programs or operations 
administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and funded 
through the Commodity Credit Corporation maintain that status 
in fiscal year 1999. No discretionary funds are provided to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service to convert CCC-funded programs to 
discretionary funding.
    The Committee does not agree with the proposal to establish 
an account to manage currency fluctuations.
    The Committee has provided bill language to allow no more 
than $140,000 annually in representation allowances. Previous 
bills have set a limit of $128,000 for this purpose. The 
increase reflects the increased requirements placed on FAS by 
other USDA agencies participating in international programs.
    The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service 
to focus more of its training and technical assistance 
resources on cross border programs that share successful 
agricultural development efforts in the countries of the former 
Soviet Union.
    The Committee also expects the Department to aggressively 
promote the export of U.S.-origin seafood products in its 
export credit guarantee and other export assistance programs.

                             Public Law 480

                       program and grant accounts

                 public law 480 title I program account

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account are used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 1998 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes 
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies 
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local 
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation 
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. 
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period 
of up to 5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.
    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                          committee provisions

    The Committee commends the Agency for International 
Development and American private voluntary organizations for 
their efforts to increase Title II relief feeding for the 
poorest of the poor in non-emergency food aid programs. The 
Committee believes that close consultation among the 
administrators of the food aid programs, the private voluntary 
organizations and the Congress is essential to make the best 
possible use of scarce food aid resources.
    The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy 
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480 
programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                          FY 1998 enacted    FY 1999 estimate      provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:                                                                                 
    Title I--Credit sales:                                                                                      
        Program level..................................     ($244,508,000)     ($111,558,000)     ($197,514,000)
        Direct loans...................................      (226,900,000)      (102,163,000)      (182,624,000)
        Ocean freight differential.....................        17,608,000          9,395,000         14,890,000 
        Loan subsidies.................................       176,596,000         88,667,000        158,499,000 
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:                                                               
        Program level..................................      (837,000,000)      (837,000,000)      (837,000,000)
        Appropriation..................................       837,000,000        837,000,000        837,000,000 
    Title III--Commodity grants:                                                                                
        Program level..................................       (30,000,000)       (30,000,000)       (25,000,000)
        Appropriation..................................        30,000,000         30,000,000         25,000,000 
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                      
        General Sales Manager..........................         1,035,000          1,093,000          1,035,000 
        FSA............................................           815,000            845,000            815,000 
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.....................................         1,850,000          1,938,000          1,850,000 
                                                        ========================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:                                                                                
              Program level............................   ($1,111,508,000)     ($978,558,000)   ($1,059,514,000)
              Appropriation............................    $1,063,054,000       $967,000,000     $1,037,239,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                                                                        
                                     Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1998 appropriation................   \1\ $407,630,000         $3,820,000
1999 budget estimate..............    \2\ 253,000,000          4,085,000
Provided in the bill..............        252,500,000          3,820,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1998 appropriation............       -155,130,000  .................
    1999 budget estimate..........           -500,000           -265,000
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Subsidy needed to support a program level of $5,500,000,000.        
\2\ Subsidy needed to support a program level of $4,615,000,000.        


    Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided 
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to 
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program 
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. 
The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-term credit with 
repayment terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade 
Act of 1978, as amended, requires that not less than $5.5 
billion be made available annually from 1996 through 2002 for 
GSM-102 and GSM-103. The FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the 
Emerging Markets Export Credit Program.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan 
guarantees committed in 1999 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

                                                                                                                
                                                                                 User fee                       
                                                             Appropriation       accounts       Total, FDA, S&E 
                                                                                                                
1998 appropriation.......................................      $857,501,000    ($131,088,000)     ($988,589,000)
1999 budget estimate.....................................       878,884,000     (141,230,000)    (1,020,114,000)
Provided in the bill.....................................       871,499,000     (141,230,000)    (1,012,729,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1998 appropriation...................................       +13,998,000     (+10,142,000)      (+24,140,000)
    1999 budget estimate.................................        -7,385,000  ................       (-7,385,000)
                                                                                                                

    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 $1,012,729,000, an increase of 
$24,140,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $7,385,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation includes $126,845,000 for the Prescription Drug 
User Fee Act and $14,385,000 for the Mammography Quality Clinic 
Act. Of the amount for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, 
$5,428,000 may be transferred to and merged with the FDA rental 
payments account.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $2,500,000 for 
the Office of Cosmetics and Colors. The FDA recently announced 
significant reductions to its regulatory efforts related to 
cosmetics. The Committee disagrees with the elimination of this 
office. The Office of Cosmetics and Colors provides standards 
for both industry and consumers to assure the safety and 
effectiveness of products.
    The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 
authorized a new pre-market notification system for food 
packaging materials. The current lengthy review process has 
resulted in significant lost sales to stakeholder companies. 
The outdated system causes decisions to not bring new products 
to market. The Committee provides $500,000 to begin the 
development of the new approval process system.
    The Committee expects the Food and Drug Administration to 
report to Congress by April 1, 1999, on implementation of the 
Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-250). The 
report should address, among other matters, submission numbers, 
approval numbers, and review times for various types of animal 
drug applications, making a distinction between food and non-
food producing animals. The report also should address the 
types and numbers of studies, including field investigations, 
utilized in the approval of animal drug applications.
    The Committee has provided an additional $250,000 for a 
total of $450,000 for the Office of Seafood Inspection for 
seafood safety and equivalency agreements for imported seafood. 
The amount includes $200,000, the same as fiscal year 1998, for 
a grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission.
    Health care costs in the country have increased to 
extraordinary levels. One effort that could assist in 
addressing this problem is the quick approval of generic 
products. FDA must assure bioequivalency, but should review 
applications as quickly as possible. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to 
assist with accelerated approvals.
    The Committee supports the food safety initiative and has 
provided an increase of $6,998,000 for this effort. The 
Committee expects the FDA to target these funds toward 
increased inspections of imported foods.
    The FDA has requested an increase of $100,000,000 for its 
youth tobacco prevention initiative. While the Committee 
concurs with the desire to eliminate young peoples' use of 
tobacco products, the FDA should expect to receive any 
additional funds for this initiative from any settlement 
related to tobacco.
    For fiscal year 1999, the Committee provides the following 
program accounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 1998   Fiscal year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods.............................       $203,830,000       $214,078,000
Human drugs.......................        199,305,000        200,305,000
Biologics.........................         96,279,000         96,279,000
Animal drugs & feeds..............         41,973,000         41,973,000
Medical Devices...................        143,486,000        148,486,000
National Center for Toxicological                                       
 Research.........................         31,079,000         31,579,000
Tobacco...........................         34,000,000         34,000,000
Other services including program                                        
 management.......................         81,694,000         78,944,000
Rent & related activities.........         25,855,000         25,855,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................       $857,501,000       $871,499,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        buildings and facilities

1998 appropriation......................................     $21,350,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       8,350,000
Provided in the bill....................................      11,350,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     -10,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      +3,000,000

    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 an appropriation of 
$11,350,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $3,000,000 
above the budget request. The increase provided is to begin 
work on phase three of construction of the National Center for 
Toxicological Research.

                         rental payments (fda)

1998 appropriation......................................     $46,294,000
1999 budget estimate....................................  \1\ 88,294,000
Provided in the bill....................................  \1\ 88,294,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................     +42,000,000
    1999 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Includes $5,428,000 transfer from PDUFA.

    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 $88,294,000, an 
increase of $36,572,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1998 and the same as the budget request. Also, included is 
bill language authorizing $5,428,000 of Prescription Drug User 
Fee Act fees to be used for rental payments.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation

1998 appropriation......................................      $7,728,000
1999 budget estimate....................................       2,565,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,565,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      -5,163,000
    1999 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 $2,565,000, a decrease of $5,163,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same amount as 
the budget request.

                          Independent Agencies

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1998 appropriation......................................     $58,101,000
1999 budget estimate....................................      63,360,000
Provided in the bill....................................      62,140,000
Comparison:
    1998 appropriation..................................      +4,039,000
    1999 budget estimate................................      -1,220,000

    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 $62,140,000, an increase of 
$4,039,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and 
a decrease of $1,220,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission is considering a proposal to permit electronic 
trading of certain financial futures. Advances in information 
technology which enable farmers, processors and manufacturers 
to better manage their finances and the risks inherent in 
agriculture should be promoted by the Commission. To assure 
farmers and others involved in agriculture timely access to 
technological advances in financial instruments, the Committee 
urges the Commission to act promptly on the proposal, judging 
it solely on merit.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

1998 limitation.........................................   ($34,423,000)
1999 budget estimate....................................    (35,800,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (35,800,000)
Comparison:
    1998 limitation.....................................    (+1,377,000)
    1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

    The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by 
Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to 
the Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23, 
1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the 
direction of a Federal Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The 
Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-205) clarified the 
FCA's role as an arm's-length financial regulator, granting it 
the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal 
financial regulatory agencies. The Act also replaced the 
Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-
time Board members with the FCA Board, comprised of a Chairman 
and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time 
capacity. Not more than two members of the Board shall be 
members of the same political party.
    The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and 
examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System). 
The FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority 
of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The 
institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, Federal 
land bank associations, Federal intermediate credit banks, 
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

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $35,800,000, an increase 
of $1,377,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 
and the same as the budget request.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701 through 723 of the General Provisions 
contained in the accompanying bill for fiscal year 1999 are 
fundamentally the same as those included in last year's 
appropriations bill.
    Section 724. Language is included to allow funds from the 
Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
and the Rural Development agencies to be used to support a 
staff office for common support services including the common 
computer system.
    Section 725. Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural 
America.
    Section 726. Language is included to prohibit funds to 
carry out a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
    Section 727. Language is included to limit the amount of 
funds available for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program to $174,000,000.
    Section 728. Language is included to limit enrollment of 
acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 130,000 acres.
    Section 729. Language is included to limit the amount of 
funds available for The Emergency Food Assistance Program to 
$90,000,000.
    Section 730. Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
    Section 731. This provision makes the City of Big Spring, 
Texas eligible for programs of the Rural Housing Service.
    Section 732. This provision makes the Municipality of 
Carolina, Puerto Rico eligible for assistance under rural 
development programs.
    Section 733: This provision restores the eligibility of 
certain communities for rural development programs pending 
revision of population and other criteria.
    Section 734. Language is included that funds in this Act 
shall not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program 
that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-
owned cooperatives.
    Section 735. Language is included that allows the change of 
the term ``antibacterial'' to conform with the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    Section 736. Language is included that grants the Secretary 
of Agriculture an extension of the date to implement a final 
rule on milk marketing orders required by the Agricultural 
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253).
    Section 737. The Committee continues to support the 
aggressive use of GSM-102 credits to promote foreign market 
development and is concerned that recent nuclear tests in India 
and Pakistan may jeopardize the application of this program to 
South Asia. Markets in India and Pakistan may be at risk under 
the terms of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits any 
U.S. credit guarantees to a non-nuclear state that detonates a 
nuclear device. The Committee believes that the Secretary of 
Treasury, in consultation with other Administration officials, 
has the authority to make a determination exempting commodity 
credit programs from the terms of the Arms Export Control Act, 
but also recognizes the need for legislative codification of 
this issue. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill 
language exempting any credit, credit guarantee, or other 
financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture 
for the purchase of food or other agriculture commodities from 
sanctions under Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act. 
The provision is limited to fiscal year 1999 and is designated 
as an emergency requirement.
    Section 738. Language is included that requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture, when announcing the basic formula 
price for milk for purposes of Federal milk marketing orders (7 
U.S.C. 608c), to include in the announcement an estimate, 
stated on a per hundredweight basis, of the costs incurred by 
milk producers, including transportation and marketing costs, 
to produce milk in various regions of the United States.

                    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. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill allows the funds appropriated to the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to 
agencies.
    6. Office of the Inspector General.--Authority is provided 
to transfer funds to the Office of the Inspector General from 
the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the 
Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
    7. 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.
    8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    9. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds 
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the 
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
    10. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    11. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm 
Service Agency salaries and expenses account.
    12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; Rural 
Development Loan Program Account; and Rural Electrification and 
Telecommunications Loan Program Account.--The bill provides 
that administrative funds may be transferred to various 
salaries and expenses accounts.
    13. Rural Housing Assistance Program; Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program; and Rural Utilities Assistance 
Program.--The bill allows funds to be transferred between 
authorized programs within the account.
    14. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    15. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    16. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export 
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
    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 to the 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 of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing 
law. In most instances, these provisions have been included in 
prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the 
knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative 
committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 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 which allows the transfer of 
limited amounts to and from this account. Language is included 
that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant an 
easement at the Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, 
and language is included that authorizes the Agricultural 
Research Service to charge fees for any permit, easement, lease 
or other special use authorization for the occupancy or use of 
land and facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be 
credited to the Agricultural Research Service and remain 
available until expended.
    3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    4. Inspector General.--Language is included to allow the 
Inspector General to use funds transferred through forfeiture 
proceedings for authorized law enforcement activities.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    10. 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.
    11. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included that 
allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
payments.
    12. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which 
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and 
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
    13. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during fiscal year 1999 be funded for a five-year period.
    17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
Program Account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for electric loans to exceed seven percent.
    18. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    19. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    20. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    21. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    22. 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. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    23. Food and Drug Administration.--Language included since 
1986 prohibits any user fee authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    24. Rental Payments (FDA).--Language included since 1985 
allows transfer of limited amounts to and from this account.
    25. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from 
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
    26. 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, fruit fly program, 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; 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; Farm Service Agency, salaries 
        and expenses to county committees; National 
        Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture; 
        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, except for grants 
        available under the Small Business Innovation and 
        Development Act.
          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 1999 for the Rural Development 
        Loan Fund Program Account; 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 sums 
        necessary for fiscal year 1999 pay raises shall be 
        absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
          Section 716: This provision provides that the 
        Agricultural Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration; and the Animal 
        and Plant Health Inspection Service may use cooperative 
        agreements.
          Section 717: Provides that not more than 5 percent of 
        Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be 
        retired in fiscal year 1999. The provision also 
        prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount 
        which has not been specifically authorized by law. The 
        provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated 
        funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating 
        account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank 
        that are in excess of current requirements.
          Section 718: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to provide market promotion/market 
        access program assistance to the U.S. Mink Export 
        Development Council or any mink industry trade 
        association.
          Section 719: Provides that of the funds made 
        available, not more than $1,400,000 shall be used to 
        cover expenses of activities related to all advisory 
        committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
        Department of Agriculture except for panels used to 
        comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to 
        evaluate competitive award grants.
          Section 720: Provides that none of the funds may be 
        used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of 
        Public Law 104-127.
          Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of 
        the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or 
        assigned to any other agency or office of the 
        Department for more than 30 days unless the 
        individual's employing agency or office is fully 
        reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
        salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
        assignment.
          Section 722: This provision prohibits the Department 
        of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to 
        any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or 
        responses to questions that are a result of information 
        requested for the appropriations hearing process.
          Section 723: Language is included that requires 
        certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in 
        Appropriations Acts.
          Section 724: Language is included to allow the Farm 
        Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation 
        Service and the Rural Development agencies to support a 
        staff office to provide common support services 
        including computer systems.
          Section 725: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out programs under the Fund 
        for Rural America.
          Section 726: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        to carry out a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
          Section 727: Language is included to limit the amount 
        of funds available for the Environmental Quality 
        Incentives Program to $174,000,000.
          Section 728: Language is included to limit enrollment 
        of acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 130,000 
        acres.
          Section 729: Language is included to limit the amount 
        of funds available for The Emergency Food Assistance 
        Program to $90,000,000.
          Section 730: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future 
        Agriculture and Food Systems.
          Section 731-733: Language is included to allow the 
        Municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, the City of Big 
        Spring, Texas and certain other communities to be 
        eligible for rural development programs.
          Section 734. Language is included that funds in this 
        Act shall not be used to carry out any commodity 
        purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or 
        participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
          Section 735. Language is included that allows the 
        change of the term ``antibacterial'' to conform with 
        the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
          Section 736. Language is included that grants the 
        Secretary of Agriculture an extension of the date to 
        implement a final rule on milk marketing orders 
        required by the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
        U.S.C. 7253).
          Section 737. Language is included that exempts the 
        commodity credit programs from sanctions under section 
        102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act. The provision is 
        limited to fiscal year 1999 and is designated as an 
        emergency requirement.
          Section 738. Language is included that requires the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, when announcing the basic 
        formula price for milk for purposes of Federal milk 
        marketing orders (7 U.S.C. 608c), to include in the 
        announcement an estimate, stated on a per hundredweight 
        basis, of the costs incurred by milk producers, 
        including transportation and marketing costs, to 
        produce milk in various regions of the United States.

                  Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3

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

        SECTION 512 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

                            new animal drugs

    Sec. 512. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (4) In a case in which an animal drug contains more than 
one active ingredient, or the labeling of the drug prescribes, 
recommends, or suggests use of the drug in combination with one 
or more other animal drugs, and the active ingredients or drugs 
intended for use in the combination have previously been 
separately approved for particular uses and conditions of use 
for which they are intended for use in the combination--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) the Secretary shall not issue an order under 
        paragraph (1)(E) refusing to approve an application for 
        a combination animal drug intended for use in animal 
        feed or drinking water unless the Secretary finds that 
        the application fails to demonstrate that--
                  (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (iii) where a combination contains more than 
                one nontopical antibacterial ingredient or 
                animal drug, there is substantial evidence that 
                each of the nontopical antibacterial 
                ingredients or animal drugs makes a 
                contribution to the labeled effectiveness, 
                except that for purposes of this clause, 
                antibacterial ingredient or animal drug does 
                not include the ionophore or arsenical classes 
                of animal drugs; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               SECTION 102 OF THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT

SEC. 102. NUCLEAR REPROCESSING TRANSFERS, ILLEGAL EXPORTS FOR NUCLEAR 
                    EXPLOSIVE DEVICES, TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE 
                    DEVICES, AND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Prohibitions on Assistance to Countries Involved in 
Transfer or Use of Nuclear Explosive Devices; Exceptions; 
Procedures Applicable.--(1) * * *
    (2) The sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) are as 
follows:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) The United States Government shall deny to that 
        country any credit, credit guarantees, or other 
        financial assistance by any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
        that the sanction of this subparagraph shall not 
        apply--
                  (i) to any transaction subject to the 
                reporting requirements of title V of the 
                National Security Act of 1947 (relating to 
                congressional oversight of intelligence 
                activities), [or]
                  (ii) to humanitarian assistance[.], or
                  (iii) to any credit, credit guarantee, or 
                other financial assistance provided by the 
                Department of Agriculture for the purchase or 
                other provision of food or other agricultural 
                commodities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  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:

          Section 515, Multi-Family Housing,
          Section 538 Guaranteed Multiple Family Housing,
          Dairy Indemnity Program,
          Elderly Feeding Program,
          Food Assistance for the Nuclear-Affected Islands,
          Child Nutrition Programs,
          Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
        Infants and Children.

                   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 302 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     302(b) allocation           This bill      
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                       Full committee data                          Budget                  Budget              
                                                                   authority    Outlays    authority    Outlays 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:                                                                              
    Discretionary...............................................      13,587      14,002      13,621      14,025
    Mandatory...................................................      41,058      33,087      42,291      33,090
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      54,645      47,089      55,912      47,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 320(b) suballocation.     
  However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the        
  Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding designated as emergency requirements. After  
  the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will provide an increased      
  section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new allocation will eliminate
  the technical difference prior to floor consideration.                                                        

                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

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

                                                                        
                   Five year projections                                
                                                                        
Budget Authority......................................            55,912
Outlays:                                                                
    1999..............................................            41,010
    2000..............................................             4,862
    2001..............................................               577
    2002..............................................               359
    2003 and beyond...................................               470
                                                                        

    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 1997 and beyond.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

                        [In millions of dollars]

New budget authority....................................          18,268
Fiscal year 1999 outlays resulting therefrom............          14,782

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1999, 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 
1999, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the 
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall 
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 1999 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 1999 budget estimates, as amended, for such departments 
and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in 
addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual state, district, and county offices.

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: June 16, 1998.
    Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 1999.
    Motion by: Mrs. Lowey.
    Description of motion: Assessing civil penalties for 
violations of Federal meat and poultry inspection laws.
    Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 25 nays.
        Memebers Voting Yea           Members Voting Nay
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Callahan
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Cramer
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Dickey
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Forbes
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Neumann                         Mr. Kingston
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Porter                          Mr. McDade
Mr. Price                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Packard
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young





                   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID R. OBEY

    The federal milk marketing order system has been around 
since 1938. Originally, intended to encourage production of 
milk in dairy deficit regions today it has a complicated 
pricing formula that no one, not even Einstein, could 
understand. But, what every dairy farmer in the country 
understands is that it is an inequitable, costly and outdated 
law that mandates farmers in Florida get paid about $3 per 
hundredweight more than dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest for 
their milk that goes to fluid use, and farmers in New York and 
Texas get paid about $2 per hundredweight more. For exactly the 
same product, the federal government mandates that farmers in 
some regions of the country get paid more than farmers in other 
regions.
    When the Farm Bill was before Congress in 1996, the 
Republican majority said they wanted reform that would return 
real markets to farming. But, when it came to dairy, they 
opposed any changes to the status quo. During negotiations, a 
deal was struck between the GOP leadership and the leadership 
of the Agriculture Committee that prevented the Chairman of the 
Dairy Subcommittee, Steve Gunderson, from offering real reform. 
That deal said that there would be no legislative remedy to the 
widely-perceived problems of the milk marketing orders. The 
only remedy they would allow was an evaluation by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture which was charged with developing 
proposals to make the federal milk order system more market 
oriented.
    Now, USDA has begun that process. In fact, it is two years 
into the 3-year reform timetable that was laid out in the Farm 
Bill. Out of 7 or 8 alternatives ranging from no reform to 
wholesale overhaul, USDA came out with two final options; 
minimal reform and none. Even that is too much for the backers 
of the status quo, however and the self-proclaimed champions of 
``Free Enterprise'' in this Congress are using this Department 
of Agriculture Appropriations bill to block even the very 
minimal reforms developed by USDA.
    The Farm Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
implement market order reforms by April 4, 1999, three years 
from date of enactment. Secretary Glickman has indicated that 
his preference is Option 1B. That option calls for narrowing 
slightly the disparities in the dairy differential payments 
that farmers receive for milk that goes into fluid use, thereby 
reducing but not eliminating, the competitive disadvantage 
suffered by dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. USDA has also 
indicated that its rulemaking is on schedule and that it 
expects to complete action and implement reform by the 
deadline.
    However, this bill contains a provision which extends the 
rulemaking and implementation of the minimal reforms proposed 
by the Secretary for a further 6 months so that Congress is in 
session when the final rule is proposed. That is a clear signal 
to the Secretary to back off. The same people in Congress who 
said that they would not allow a legislative remedy for 
consumers and farmers are now saying that they were not serious 
about allowing for an administrative remedy, either. This 
extension of USDA rulemaking says, in effect, that if USDA 
develops any proposals that are in any way real, then Congress 
will wipe that out with a legislative override. It's a signal 
to the Secretary that he should not do anything to change the 
status quo. It's a shot across the bow of the USDA, telling the 
Secretary ``if you're thinking of real reform, don't bother 
because we'll cut you off.
    Congress told the Administration to develop a reform 
proposal and it should stick to that. But, the champions of the 
status quo want it both ways. The people who get hurt are dairy 
farmers in the Upper Midwest and consumers throughout the 
country who will have to pay more for their milk.
    In addition, this bill includes an extension of the North 
East Dairy Compact which authorizes a dairy cartel in six New 
England states. The Compact allows those states to artificially 
hike up the prices that farmers receive and the prices that 
consumers pay in those states and keep out dairy products from 
other regions. The same Congress that passed NAFTA and declared 
that we should tear down global trade barriers is erecting new 
internal trade barriers to our own, American products.
    These are two reasons I am opposed to this bill.
    I am grateful that the Committee agreed to include a 
provision that directs the Department of Agriculture to, for 
the first time, announce a monthly Cost of Production (CoP) 
figure for milk at the same time that it announces the Basic 
Formula Price (BFP). Currently, USDA announces the BFP on or 
about the 5th of every month so that everyone has a pretty good 
idea of how much farmers are getting paid. But, it is much more 
difficult to determine how much it costs farmers to produce 
that milk. That's because cost of production figures are 
published annually and they are two years out of date at the 
time of publication. That means we are only getting half the 
picture. By requiring USDA to announce on a monthly basis how 
much it costs farmers to produce their milk at the same time it 
announces the BFP we get to see the whole dairy farm finance 
picture. That's important for consumers who will get a better 
understanding of conditions on the farm and it could provide a 
useful tool for policymakers.
    Unfortunately, while this provision improves the bill, it 
fails to outweigh the injury caused by the undermining of dairy 
reform. I expect to have an amendment to the dairy section and 
I would urge members to support whatever amendments are offered 
to eliminate the North East Dairy Compact.
    Finally, another reason I am opposed to this bill is that 
the allocation for agriculture, rural development and nutrition 
programs provided herein simply does not meet the needs of our 
nation's farmers and consumers.

                                                     David R. Obey.

   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR, HON. VIC FAZIO, HON. JOSE 
            SERRANO, HON. ROSA DeLAURO, AND HON. NITA LOWEY

    While we support the overall Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill as reported, we are compelled to point out 
that funding levels are simply inadequate for several of the 
most critically important programs in this bill. Discretionary 
funding for the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill is $130 million below comparable FY 1998 spending levels, 
but total amounts provided under this bill (mandatory and 
discretionary spending) have declined by almost 30 percent 
since fiscal year 1994. It is clear that agriculture, rural 
development, and nutritional programs continue to bear more 
than their fair share of overall budget reductions.
    We appreciate the difficult choices that had to be made by 
the Subcommittee Chairman, and recognize that he has crafted a 
balanced bill that attempts to address the needs of farmers, 
food and drug safety, rural communities, consumers, and those 
in our population most at risk nutritionally. But we are 
compelled to highlight several areas where additional resources 
are vital in order to ensure that U.S. agriculture remains 
globally preeminent in the next century, and that there is 
adequate investment in our nation's people and infrastructure.

                              food safety

    One area that demands additional resources is food safety. 
Nine thousand Americans die, and another thirty-three million 
become ill each year from food borne pathogens. Currently less 
than two-tenths of one percent of all imported produce is being 
inspected for pathogen contamination. If we are serious about 
protecting the health and safety of the American people, then 
we need to commit greater resources to assure that their food 
and produce are of the highest quality. Imports of foreign 
grown produce and food are at record levels. American consumers 
are overdue for better and stronger safeguards. While the bill 
includes an additional $15 million over current spending levels 
for food safety, it falls $80 million short of fully 
implementing the President's food safety initiative for 
programs in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Additional 
resources must be found for both the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Department of Agriculture to ensure 
adequate protection for American consumers.
    We are also concerned that this bill does not include a 
provision giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 
levy civil penalties against those who violate the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Civil 
fines provide a quicker, more effective deterrent for violators 
of food safety laws than the lengthy process needed to obtain a 
criminal conviction. They can be used as an enforcement tool 
against plants that do not meet their food safety 
responsibilities. This authority is critical to ensuring that 
the U.S. food supply remains the safest in the world. That is 
why the Clinton Administration and a wide range of consumer, 
labor, and public health groups support this provision. We will 
continue to work toward inclusion of this provision on this or 
any other appropriate vehicle.

                      women, infants and children

    Funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is frozen in this bill at the 
FY 1998 level of $3.9 billion, which is $157 million below the 
President's budget request. The Office of Management and Budget 
has indicated that this amount will only support a 
participation level of between 7.3 and 7.4 million women, 
infants and children who are nutritionally at risk. Based on 
current year-end projections for FY 1998, this could mean a 
reduction below the number of participants served by this 
program in the current year. While criticisms of the WIC 
program have been expressed, actions taken in this bill and 
report, as well as recent actions taken by the authorizing 
Committee, go a long way toward addressing these concerns. 
Improvements in management and administration of this worthy 
program at all levels can and should be made, but should not be 
at the expense of the pregnant women and children who depend on 
this program for a sound nutritional start in life. The WIC 
program is a sound long-term investment--each dollar spent on 
WIC yields more than three dollars in savings to the government 
through reduced spending on Medicaid and other programs. The 
WIC program ensure that millions of women and children receive 
adequate nutrition and health advice--preventing illnesses and 
other health problems in the future.

                         conservation programs

    It is critical that we end the erosion of USDA assistance 
available to provide basic technical conservation services to 
private agricultural landowners, particularly at a time when 
the control of animal waste presents a tremendous challenge to 
rural communities. The Federal government mustmaintain its 
commitment to support locally led conservation initiatives which secure 
a safe and productive environment. The funds provided in this bill are 
$40 million below the budget request for conservation operations. The 
bill also makes reductions in critical mandatory conservation programs 
such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality 
Incentive Program (EQIP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 
(WHIP). Cuts in these worthy programs enabled the subcommittee to 
maintain or slightly increase funding for other worthy discretionary 
programs in this bill, but these tradeoffs mask the true impact of the 
spending levels in this bill.
    This bill also provides no funds for the Farmland 
Protection Program because it is not authorized. We must step 
up our efforts to protect America's prime farmland from urban 
sprawl. Approximately 1.5 million acres of productive farmland 
disappears nationally each year to urban development. This is 
equivalent to two acres every minute. In many cases these lands 
are an irreplaceable world resource as a source of flood, 
fiber, fuels and forest products.

                              Other Issues

    We are also concerned that the Committee could not do more 
to prevent America's youth from smoking. The bill includes $34 
million for the President's Tobacco Initiative, the same amount 
provided for the current fiscal year. As astounding 4.5 million 
12-17-year-olds smoke, and 3,000 young people under the age of 
18 become regular smokers every day. The request of $134 
million for the FDA Youth Tobacco Prevention initiative would 
have simply enabled strict enforcement of laws against tobacco 
sales to minors, and expanded FDA's education campaign to get 
the word out that these laws are on the books. An overwhelming 
ninety-two percent of Americans agree that young people should 
be required to show an ID to purchase tobacco. This is a 
mandate for action rarely seen and one that Congress should 
heed.
    This bill also includes a reduction of $10 million for the 
mandatory Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) which 
purchases commodities for individuals greatly in need of 
assistance. Demand for food assistance through food banks and 
soup kitchens is increasing due to implementation of welfare 
reform. We are concerned that this reduction from the 
authorized level would mean less food will reach the most 
vulnerable Americans.
    Another area of concern in this bill is funding for rural 
development programs, particularly funding for rural water and 
sewer programs. While we appreciate the increase of $30 million 
provided over current levels for direct water and sewer loans, 
we are concerned that this amount does not go far enough. 
Additional funding must be found to address the backlog of 
applications for technical assistance for financing for the 
modern, affordable water and sewer service necessary to improve 
the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans.

                               Conclusion

    Again, we congratulate the Subcommittee Chairman for 
fashioning what may be the best bill possible within the 
allocation he was dealt. We appreciate his bipartisanship and 
his sensitivity to balancing the burden of these tight funding 
levels between the various constituencies served by this bill. 
But we would be remiss if we failed to point out the serious 
shortfalls that still exist for many programs. Without an 
additional allocation of resources, we continue to betray our 
commitment to American farmers and to all consumers who benefit 
from the bounty they produce.

                                   Marcy Kaptur.
                                   Vice Fazio.
                                   Jose Serrano.
                                   Rosa DeLauro.
                                   Nita Lowey.

                                
