[Senate Report 105-212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 409
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

  2d Session                                                    105-212
_______________________________________________________________________


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

                                _______
                                

                 June 11, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2159]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2159) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.


Total obligational authority, fiscal year 1999

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $56,813,535,000
Amount of 1998 appropriations acts to date..............  49,753,136,000
Amount of estimates, 1999...............................  57,780,138,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Over the appropriations provided in 1998............   7,060,399,000
    Under the estimates for 1999........................     966,603,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          Summary of the Bill

                                                                   Page
Overview and summary of the bill.................................     6
Government Performance and Results Act...........................     6

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

Office of the Secretary..........................................     7
Executive operations.............................................     9
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................    12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    12
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.........    13
Hazardous waste management.......................................    14
Departmental administration......................................    14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    16
Office of Communications.........................................    17
Office of the Inspector General..................................    17
Office of the General Counsel....................................    18
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
  Economics......................................................    18
Economic Research Service........................................    19
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    20
Agricultural Research Service....................................    21
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....    39
Office of Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
  Programs.......................................................    47
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......................    48
Agricultural Marketing Service...................................    54
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    58
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    59
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    59
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
  Services.......................................................    60
Farm Service Agency..............................................    61
Risk Management Agency...........................................    67

                              Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund..........................    68
Commodity Credit Corporation fund................................    69

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
  Environment....................................................    74
Natural Resources Conservation Service...........................    74

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
  Development....................................................    83
Rural Community Advancement Program..............................    84
Rural Housing Service............................................    86
Rural Business-Cooperative Service...............................    95
Rural Utilities Service..........................................    98

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 
  Services.......................................................   103
Food and Nutrition Service.......................................   103

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service and the General Sales Manager.......   116

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Food and Drug Administration.....................................   122

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service.....................................   128

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   129
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   130

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   131
Program, project, and activity...................................   132
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   133
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   133
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   134

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1999 Committee 
                                         1998 \1\        recommendation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....     $6,940,232,000    $14,316,921,000
Title II: Conservation programs...        786,474,000        791,852,000
Title III: Rural economic and                                           
 community development programs...      2,087,222,000      2,172,404,000
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     37,222,519,000     37,317,407,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and                                         
 related programs.................      1,725,715,000      1,198,669,000
Title VI: Related agencies........        990,974,000      1,016,282,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                                                 
       (obligational) authority...     49,753,136,000     56,813,535,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes enacted nonemergency supplemental appropriations and       
  rescissions (Public Law 105-174), and $1,940,000 in budget authority  
  canceled by the President pursuant to Public Law 104-130.             

        COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 308(a) OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT

    Section 308(a) of the Budget Control Act (Public Law 93-
344) requires that this Committee include in its report 
specific budgetary information on the status of recommended 
appropriations relative to the First Concurrent Resolution. The 
following table provides this data:

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL                                            
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS  
                                                     AMENDED                                                    
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays        
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations                                                    
 to its subcommittees of amounts for 1999: Subcommittee on                                                      
 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies                                                           
    Defense discretionary...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Nondefense discretionary................................       13,715       13,715       14,080   \1\ 14,080
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................       41,460       43,477       33,429       33,090
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                      
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 41,065
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,088
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          594
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          334
    2003 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          462
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1999                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA       18,436           NA       14,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
                                                                                                                
NA: Not applicable.                                                                                             


                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food programs; rural economic and 
community development activities and electrification 
assistance; and various export and international activities of 
the USDA.
    The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. It also provides money to the Department of the Treasury 
for payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance 
Corporation.
    Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, 
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
agricultural and rural development programs. It is within the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
    All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to 
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on 
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the 
report.
    The Committee also has encouraged the consideration of 
grant and loan applications from various entities. The 
Committee expects the Department only to approve those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

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

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,836,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       2,941,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,836,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $2,836,000. This amount is $105,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1998 appropriation.
    Lower Mississippi Delta region.--On May 18, 1998, the 
President submitted a budget amendment (H. Doc. 105-255) to the 
Congress to transfer $26,000,000 of the funds requested to be 
appropriated for the Department of Agriculture's Rural 
Community Advancement Program to the Appalachian Regional 
Commission [ARC] to establish a Delta Region Economic 
Development Program to assist distressed counties in the region 
specifically identified by the Congress in Public Law 100-460, 
the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act. While the 
Committee has long supported efforts to improve conditions in 
the Lower Mississippi Delta region, the Committee believes that 
the limited resources available would best be used to draw upon 
the strengths of existing programs, rather than to establish a 
new bureaucracy or involve the ARC in areas outside its 
original mission.
    Many agencies of the Department of Agriculture currently 
have responsibilities in the Lower Mississippi Delta. The 
Committee includes a general provision in the bill providing 
the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to transfer up to 
$26,000,000 of the total discretionary spending appropriated by 
the act for programs and activities of the Department of 
Agriculture for the benefit of the Lower Mississippi Delta 
region, including programs and activities specifically 
identified by the Committee for the Delta but not included in 
the President's budget and/or funding provided for programs of 
the Department which may be directed to the Delta prior to any 
normal disbursement of program funding to regions or States. It 
is expected that the Secretary will notify the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees prior to any transfer or allocation 
of funds in accordance with the requirements for the 
reprogramming of funds contained in the act.
    The Committee believes this redirection of funds best 
serves the shared intent of the Congress and the administration 
to improve conditions for the economically distressed counties 
in the Lower Mississippi Delta region. The Committee recognizes 
that the Department's rural development mission area may 
provide the primary direction for this effort, but it also 
should be stressed that there are programs in the research and 
education, conservation, food assistance, and trade areas that 
are equally important to the Delta. The Secretary is encouraged 
to work with other Federal departments and agencies toward a 
goal of Governmentwide attention to special needs of the 
region. Further, the Secretary should consult with local 
organizations such as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development 
Center, Inc., the Delta Council of Arkansas, the Delta Housing 
Development Center, and similar entities in the affected States 
in order to better respond to local needs in the region.
    Cotton acreage reports.--The Committee expects the 
Secretary to utilize his authority under section 374(A) of the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to collect, assimilate, and 
make available to agencies and entities responsible for boll 
weevil eradication or other areawide pest control programs 
information concerning acreage planted to cotton or other 
crops.
    Environmentally preferable products.--The Secretary is 
directed to work with the General Services Administration, the 
Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
other appropriate agencies to maximize the purchases of 
environmentally preferable products, as defined by Executive 
Order 12873 on Federal acquisition, recycling and waste 
prevention. Such products are not only useful in improving the 
environment, but can, when the product contains a substantial 
amount of agri-based content, also open considerable markets 
for farmers.
    The Department should actively participate in joint task 
forces and other multiagency entities in this area. It should 
actively work to properly define standards for agri-based 
content of products and work toward the development of such 
environmentally preferable products.
    The triticeae crops.--The triticeae crops--wheat, barley, 
rye--are the foundation of human nutrition and of enormous 
economic importance to the United States and the world. Wheat, 
with its high protein content, is the single-most important 
source of plant protein in the human diet. In 1997, combined 
world production of wheat and barley totaled over 763 million 
metric tons, compared to world corn production of 582 million 
metric tons, and soybean production of about 150 million metric 
tons. Wheat and barley are also subject to the most competitive 
international trade practices of all agricultural products.
    There is evidence the progress achieved in productivity, 
quality, and resistance to diseases and pests through 
traditional research and breeding programs is beginning to 
wane. Newer genetic technologies offer the promise to reverse 
this trend in the 21st century. However, the U.S. research 
system has not focused on the development of these technologies 
and their application to the triticeae crops.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to work to develop 
and implement an expedited plan for genome research on the 
triticeae crops for fiscal year 1999 in cooperation with the 
National Science Foundation.
    USDA commodity purchases.--The Committee is concerned over 
the use of guidelines or procedures relating to small 
businesses which effectively prohibit many farmers who have 
joined together in cooperative marketing efforts from being 
eligible to participate in USDA commodity purchase programs. 
Such guidelines fail to recognize the unique characteristics of 
farmer-owned cooperatives, which are comprised of hundreds, and 
sometimes thousands, of individual small businesses. They also 
serve to penalize and discriminate against farmers who join 
together in cooperative self-help efforts, and eliminate a 
potentially significant market for their products. In a rapidly 
changing global marketplace, it is essential that farmers be 
able to join together in cooperative self-help efforts to 
improve their income, minimize their risk, and compete more 
effectively. Encouraging such efforts is consistent with long-
standing public policy.
    The Committee has included a general provision in the bill 
to require farmer-owned cooperatives' participation in USDA 
commodity purchase programs.
    Food Quality Protection Act.--The Committee is aware of 
concerns about how the Food Quality Protection Act [FQPA] is 
being implemented. The Committee concurs with the direction set 
forth in the Vice President's memorandum of April 8, 1998, to 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] setting forth clear 
principles to guide implementation of the FQPA. The Committee 
believes that the Department should fully carry out its 
responsibilities under this memorandum. To accomplish this, the 
Committee expects the Department to use the expertise and 
resources of its agencies, including but not limited to ERS, 
ARS, CSREES, AMS, and NASS, to participate with the EPA in the 
implementation of the FQPA. The Committee's intent is to ensure 
that FQPA decisions are based on sound science, and reliable, 
accurate, and widely accepted data which reflects the Nation's 
agricultural production, practices, and conditions.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to report to the 
Committee within 90 days of the enactment of this act and 
annually thereafter actions taken by the Department to comply 
with and carry out the Vice President's directives.

                          Executive Operations

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

                            Chief Economist

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $5,048,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,823,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,048,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
recommends $5,048,000. This amount is $775,000 less than the 
budget request and the same as the 1998 appropriation.

           COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................        $350,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    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, a review of the future of 
production agriculture, and the appropriate role of the Federal 
Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not recommend a separate appropriation 
for the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. This 
is $350,000 less than the budget request and the same as the 
fiscal year 1998 level. The Commission was funded for fiscal 
year 1998 through the Commodity Credit Corporation and 
additional funding for the Commission can be made available 
within the limitation on funds available to the Department for 
advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces. The 
Committee recommends a $350,000 increase in the fiscal year 
1999 limitation for this purpose.

                       National Appeals Division

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $11,718,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      13,297,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,718,000

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews of 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends 
$11,718,000. This amount is $1,579,000 less than the budget 
request and the same as the 1998 appropriation.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $5,986,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       6,045,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,986,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee recommends $5,986,000. This amount is the same as the 
1998 appropriation and $59,000 less than the budget request.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,773,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       7,222,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,551,000

    The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 required the establishment of 
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. The 
Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 
August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 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. In addition, the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities 
financed under the Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 
2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated 
data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies through the 
National Information Technology Center with locations in Fort 
Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational 
services are also provided to the Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer, and executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $5,551,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $1,671,000 less than 
the budget request and $778,000 more than the 1998 
appropriation. The amount provided reflects an additional 
$778,000 for certain financial and automated data processing 
functions transferred from departmental administration in 
fiscal year 1998.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,283,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       4,562,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,283,000

    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 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee recommends $4,283,000. This amount is $279,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1998 appropriation. 
The Committee includes language in the bill directing the Chief 
Financial Officer to actively market cross-servicing activities 
of the National Finance Center.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $613,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         636,000
Committee recommendation................................         613,000

    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. In addition, the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for 
certain activities financed under the Department's working 
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee recommends $613,000. This amount 
is the same as the 1998 level and $23,000 less than the budget 
request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $131,085,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............................     147,689,000
Committee recommendation................................     137,184,000

\1\ Reflects revised budget amendment of June 8, 1998 (H. Doc. 105-270).

    Rental payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance 
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General 
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for 
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest 
Service which is funded in another appropriations bill.
    Agency budget estimates for rent are based on GSA's 
projection of what it will charge the Agency in a given budget 
year. GSA sets rates according to the market value of property 
or space occupied, and independent of any agency input. Rent 
receipts are placed in a fund used by GSA in the management of 
its real property operations. All Federal Government agencies 
utilizing Government-owned or leased property pay into this 
fund, which provides GSA with a pool of capital to support 
overall Government space needs. In effect, agencies are paying 
prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize the 
inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space, and 
to provide for vacant space in GSA's inventory.
    Building operations and maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the 
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the 
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides 
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain, 
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the 
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms 
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the 
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW, 
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major 
nonrecurring repairs.
    Strategic space plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the 
Metropolitan Washington 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 reallocation of 
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA strategic 
space plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the Agriculture South Building.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities 
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the 
Committee recommends $137,184,000. This amount is $10,505,000 
less than the budget request and $6,099,000 more than the 1998 
appropriation. Included in the Committee's recommendation is 
$108,057,000 for rental payments to the General Services 
Administration [GSA]; $24,127,000 for building operations and 
maintenance; and $5,000,000 for repairs, renovations, and 
construction.
    The amount recommended includes the transfer in fiscal year 
1998 of $107,700 to the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service [NASS] for leases transferred to NASS by the General 
Services Administration. Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee is unable to recommend the additional $10,505,000 
requested for the second phase of the South Building 
modernization project.

                       Hazardous Waste Management

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $15,700,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      15,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,700,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $15,700,000 for hazardous waste 
management. This amount is the same as the 1998 appropriation 
and the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $29,231,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      32,168,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,034,000

\1\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $2,000,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For departmental administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $27,034,000. This amount is $2,197,000 less 
than the 1998 appropriation and $5,134,000 less than the budget 
estimate.
    The amount provided reflects a net decrease of $2,697,000 
resulting from the transfer in fiscal year 1998 of $778,000 to 
the Office of the Chief Information Officer for certain 
functions associated with information technology; the transfer 
of $2,475,000 in resources associated with EEO counselors to 
various USDA agencies due to the abolishment of the central 
dispute resolution function; and the transfer of $556,000 and 
the 2501 program staff from the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the additional 
$2,000,000 in supplemental funding provided for fiscal year 
1998 to enable the Department to continue to resolve civil 
rights cases and complaints. Of the total amount provided, the 
Committee directs that no less than $12,799,000 be used for 
civil rights enforcement activities, including continued 
funding of the investigative unit within the Office of Civil 
Rights. Of the funds included in this account for civil rights 
activities for fiscal year 1998, $2,475,000 were transferred to 
agencies of the Department for EEO activities and are continued 
in the Committee's funding recommendations for those agencies 
for fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee is also aware that the U.S. Office of 
Government Ethics has called upon the Department to establish 
and maintain an effective, adequately staffed, centralized 
ethics program at headquarters. This office is to establish 
unified systems consistent for ethics policies, ethics training 
and counseling programs, and to oversee and monitor the 
performance of component agency ethics programs. The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 for the Department to carry 
out these recommendations.

              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

\1\ Administration of the program was transferred to departmental 
administration from the Natural Resources Conservation Service beginning 
in fiscal year 1998, pursuant to the Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 level and $7,000,000 less than the budget 
request.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $3,668,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       3,814,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,668,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$3,668,000. This amount is the same as the 1998 level and 
$146,000 less than the budget estimate.
    The Committee provides that not less than $2,241,000 shall 
be transferred to agencies funded by this act to support 
congressional relations' activities at the agency level. The 
table below indicates the specific amounts provided by the 
Committee for each agency, as compared to the fiscal year 1998 
and budget request levels.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
                                                 1999     recommendation
                                    1998       estimate                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters activities.......          957          994            957 
Intergovernmental affairs.....          470          488            470 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................        1,427        1,482          1,427 
                               =========================================
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          28O            270 
Food Safety and Inspection                                              
 Service......................          309          321            309 
Foreign Agricultural Service..          188          191            183 
Natural Resources Conservation                                          
 Service......................          148          154            148 
Risk Management Agency........  ...........          113            109 
Rural Business-Cooperative                                              
 Service......................           52           54             52 
Rural Housing Service.........          251          153            147 
Rural Utilities Service.......          142          147            142 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................        2,241        2,332          2,241 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................        3,668        3,814          3,668 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $8,138,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       8,319,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,138,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $8,138,000. This amount is the same as the 
1998 appropriation and $181,000 less than the budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $63,128,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      87,689,000
Committee recommendation................................      63,128,000

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act 
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities 
of the Office of the Inspector General which had previously 
been carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $63,128,000. This is $24,561,000 
less than the budget request and the same as the 1998 
appropriation.
    The Committee regrets that, due to severe budgetary 
constraints, it is unable to provide the increased resources 
requested in the budget for a special law enforcement 
initiative to allow the Office of the Inspector General to 
crack down on fraud and abuse in the food stamp and other 
nutrition programs, rural rental housing, and disaster, health 
and safety programs requiring immediate response. The Committee 
notes the success of initiatives already undertaken by the 
office to identify and prosecute program violators and 
encourages the Office of the IG to enhance these efforts within 
available funds.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $28,759,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      30,446,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,759,000

\1\ Reflects supplemental of $235,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $28,759,000. This amount is 
$1,687,000 less than the budget request and the same as the 
1998 appropriation.

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

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $540,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         560,000
Committee recommendation................................         540,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $540,000. This amount is $20,000 less than the 
budget request and the same as the 1998 level.
    The Committee is troubled by the recommendations for 
research and extension activities submitted in the President's 
budget. Production research, the foundation for our successes 
in agriculture, is unjustifiably targeted for significant 
reductions. The administration's decision to cut base formula 
funds for agriculture extension, research, and education, and 
to propose the termination of almost $35,000,000 of important 
ongoing production-related research in the Agricultural 
Research Service is extremely disconcerting. This 
recommendation occurs at a time when trade deficits are at 
record levels; at a time when international markets for 
agricultural commodities are intensely competitive; at a time 
when world population growth is accelerating; and at a time 
when the United States must find innovative ways to increase or 
even maintain agricultural productivity as a result of changing 
environmental regulations.
    The message given by the Committee during the recent budget 
hearings was quite clear--the research proposal of the 
Department was less than adequate, unacceptable, and would not 
stand. The ongoing agricultural production research funded 
through the ARS impacting farmers, ranchers, industry, and 
consumers recommended for termination includes such commodities 
as rice, cotton, wheat, sugarcane, soybeans, fruit, potatoes, 
peanuts, swine, beef, fish, vegetables, honeybees, forages, 
grasses, et cetera. The terminated projects would negate basic 
and applied research activities focusing on germplasm, pest 
management, biocontrol, cropping systems, lyme disease, animal 
health, weed research, biotechnology, new uses of agricultural 
commodities, soil and water conservation, and groundwater 
quality.
    The Committee has reinstated these programs in its fiscal 
year 1999 recommendation to the extent that funding limitations 
permit. Production efficiency research is critical to the 
Department's program and vital to the American producer and 
consumer.
    Furthermore, within its resource limitations, the Committee 
has recommended a 3-percent increase for the formula-funded 
base programs of extension, research and education activities 
at the land-grant universities, 1994 institutions, 1980 
colleges and Tuskegee. This reaffirms the Committee's 
recognition of the centrality of these programs to the national 
support system for agriculture.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $71,604,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      55,839,000
Committee recommendation................................      53,109,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $53,109,000. This amount is $2,730,000 less 
than the budget request and $18,495,000 less than the 1998 
appropriation. The Committee assumes the decrease of 
$18,495,000 proposed in the budget associated with the transfer 
of food stamp, child nutrition, and WIC program evaluations 
from ERS. Funding for these evaluation studies is provided 
through the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS].
    The Committee understands that ERS has reduced the 
frequency of the publication of its commodity situation and 
outlook reports in order to concentrate personnel efforts on 
other research projects. Commodity and livestock groups have 
expressed concern over the agency's action, and the effect it 
will have on farmers who rely on information provided by these 
reports. Recognizing that farmers need reliable, unbiased, 
timely, and accurate information, the Committee suggests that 
ERS consult with affected organizations and strongly consider 
restoring the frequency of publication of commodity and outlook 
reports and updates, and devoting sufficient resources to make 
the reports timely and accurate. The Committee also encourages 
the Agency to resume publication of its annual report entitled 
``Cotton Ginning Charges, Harvesting Practices, and Selected 
Marketing Costs'' and the monthly ``Cottonseed Update.''
    Further, within available funds, the Committee encourages 
ERS through the Office of Energy to undertake a study of the 
Nation's fuel markets over the next decade and develop 
recommendations for consideration by the administration and the 
Congress on measures to further expand the use of ethanol and 
ETBE, and other biofuels in the Nation's transportation fuel 
markets.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $118,048,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     107,190,000
Committee recommendation................................     103,964,000

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural 
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely 
projections of current agricultural production and measures of 
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural 
sector which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The 1999 budget estimate includes funding for the census of 
agriculture which was transferred from the Department of 
Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1997 
to consolidate agricultural statistics programs. The census of 
agriculture is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive 
data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number 
of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, 
value of land and buildings, farm size, and characteristics of 
farm operators. The census will provide national, State, and 
county data as well as selected data for Puerto Rico, Guam, and 
the United States Virgin Islands. Fiscal year 1999 is the fifth 
year of the 6-year funding cycle for the census. During this 
year, the quality and completeness of the census data will be 
analyzed, census data will be published, and follow-on surveys 
will be initiated.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $103,964,000. This 
amount is $14,084,000 less than the 1998 appropriation and 
$3,226,000 less than the budget estimate.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $23,599,000 for the 
census of agriculture. It also includes the transfer in fiscal 
year 1998 of $107,700 for General Services Administration 
leases transferred to NASS from the ``Agriculture buildings and 
facilities and rental payments'' account, and assumes a 
decrease of $13,328,000 for the census of agriculture as well 
as the savings identified in the budget from efficiencies 
gained from the transfer of the census of agriculture from the 
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. The 
Committee provides the additional $600,000 requested in the 
budget for the agricultural economics and land ownership survey 
and the aquaculture statistics census.

                     Agricultural Research Service

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $744,382,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     776,828,000
Committee recommendation................................     767,921,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $223,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research 
Service, the Committee recommends $767,921,000. This is 
$23,539,000 more than the 1998 level and $8,907,000 less than 
the budget request. The amount provided includes the transfer 
in fiscal year 1998 of $170,000 from departmental 
administration resulting from the abolishment of the central 
dispute resolution function and the return of EEO counselors to 
the individual agencies. The Committee's recommendation does 
not include the $16,000 provided for fiscal year 1998 by the 
Department of State in support of the International Cooperative 
Administrative Support Services [ICASS] Program. The Committee 
expects that ICASS Program costs will continue to be funded by 
the Department of State for fiscal year 1999.
    Of the increases requested in the budget, the Committee 
approves $1,600,000 for food safety research, of which $600,000 
is for research identified in the budget to be conducted at the 
Clay Center, NE, and $1,000,000 is to initiate cooperative 
research with the National Institute for Food Safety 
Engineering at Purdue University, IN, to develop and implement 
new technologies and systems to detect and prevent chemical and 
microbial food contaminants; $3,000,000 for dietary research, 
of which $1,000,000 is for research at each of the Houston, TX, 
and Little Rock, AR, locations, and $250,000 is for each of the 
other ARS centers proposed to conduct this work; $750,000 for 
the Everglades restoration; $1,150,000 for integrated pest 
management [IPM] and areawide IPM, including $250,000 for 
College Station, TX, $250,000 for Beltsville, MD, $250,000 for 
Stoneville, MS, and $400,000 for Columbia, MO, for research 
proposed to be conducted in the budget; and $6,750,000 for 
emerging diseases.
    Of the amount provided for emerging diseases, $3,000,000 is 
to increase support for the cooperative project designed to 
control fusarium head blight, generally known as scab, which 
continues as a major threat to the wheat and barley industries. 
This additional amount will strengthen the national program 
between ARS and the consortium of 12 land-grant universities in 
Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and South 
Dakota. Also included is $750,000 for emerging infectious plant 
diseases, of which $250,000 is for karnal bunt disease research 
to be conducted at Frederick, MD; $250,000 is for sorghum ergot 
research to be conducted at College Station, TX; and $250,000 
is for research to develop the systematics and taxonomy of bunt 
and smut fungal pathogens to be conducted at Beltsville, MD. 
The remaining $3,000,000 is for emerging exotic and domestic/
zoonotic diseases of livestock for research work proposed in 
the budget, of which $500,000 is to be conducted at Pullman, 
WA; $500,000 at Laramie, WY; $1,000,000 at the National Animal 
Disease Center, Ames, IA; $500,000 at Beltsville, MD; and 
$500,000 at Athens, GA.
    The Committee does not concur with the budget 
recommendation to close ARS laboratories and worksites and 
continues funding at the fiscal year 1998 levels for the 
Mandan, ND; Prosser, WA; Orono, ME; and Brawley, CA, ARS 
locations.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,623,700 of the 
savings from project terminations proposed in the budget, as 
well as savings from the 1-year cost of the USDA food survey of 
food consumption patterns by infants and children (-$5,000,000) 
and National Academy of Science's food safety system study 
(-$420,000) funded for fiscal year 1998. These savings are to 
be redirected to those research areas for which increased 
funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee does not 
restore funding for evaluation studies, as requested in the 
budget.
    The Committee is concerned that funds provided by Congress 
for fiscal year 1998 research enhancements and continuations 
were not released until April 1998, three-quarters into the 
fiscal year. The Committee finds this delay inexcusable, and 
expects the agency in fiscal year 1999 to give more attention 
to the prompt implementation and allocation of funds for the 
purposes provided by Congress.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to 
another without prior notification to and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless otherwise 
directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall implement 
appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, and 
activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill, as 
proposed in the budget, to facilitate land exchanges by 
allowing ARS to pay up to 25 percent of the value of land or 
interest transferred out of Federal ownership for the purpose 
of equalizing the value of the exchange; to grant easements at 
the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, including for the 
construction of the Transgenic Animal Facility; and to make 
federally owned land and facilities available for special use 
and to allow fees to be charged, as authorized by law, and 
available for authorized use by the agency.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for the 
Appalachian Fruit Research Station. The Committee recognizes 
that this increase is necessary to advance the Federal 
Government's commitment to helping deciduous fruit growers in 
Appalachia, who are characteristically small, limited-resource 
operators, remain globally competitive, while at the same time 
achieving a safe and secure manufacturing system.
    Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1998 level to 
continue agroforestry research on sustainable income 
opportunities from farm woodlands at the Appalachian Soil and 
Water Conservation Laboratory. The program emphasizes 
production of specialty crops yielding economic and 
environmental benefits.
    Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase its 
research on alternatives to pesticides and improving 
postharvest technologies for apples.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee recognizes the 
potential for ARS to develop an effective and economical 
program to utilize fish byproducts as an alternative protein 
source for animal feeds. Alaska is a world leader in fisheries 
and processing, and this research would directly impact animal 
production efficiency and reduce fish byproduct disposal costs. 
An increase of $1,200,000 is provided to ARS to work in 
cooperation with the University of Alaska to develop this vital 
program.
    Arctic germplasm.--The Committee provides an additional 
$100,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level in support of the 
arctic germplasm repository in Palmer, AK. The work of the 
repository is critical to foster and sustain efficient 
productivity of forage, vegetables, and revegetation of 
agriculturally important areas of high latitudes in the 
Northern Hemisphere.
    Areawide insect management.--The Committee is encouraged by 
the environmental and economic benefits of research performed 
at the Mid South Regional Research Center on areawide 
management of heliothis populations through integrated and 
biological methods. The Committee encourages the agency to 
continue this areawide management approach to address other 
major crop insect pest species.
    Asian bird influenza.--The Committee is concerned about the 
recent outbreak of a lethal strain of avian influenza in 
Southeast Asia. Aquatic birds host a vast pool of flu viruses 
capable of future infection of man and animals. Asian bird flu 
represents a serious threat to humans of major proportions. 
Alaska is a natural route of Eurasian birds and the viruses 
they carry into the United States, giving rise to the potential 
for the spread of the disease into North America. Eurasian 
aquatic birds summer in Alaska. There is a great potential that 
North American birds will become exposed to these viruses. The 
Committee encourages ARS scientists at Athens, GA, to provide 
technical assistance and collaborate with other leading 
virologists and ornithologists to develop and assess baseline 
data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and their 
migration habits between Southeast Asia and North America and 
their breeding grounds in Alaska.
    Barley research, Pullman, WA.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research conducted at the Pullman ARS unit on barley 
stripe rust. Barley stripe rust is a major threat to the 
Pacific Northwest barley production. The Committee maintains 
the fiscal year 1998 funding level for research on barley 
stripe rust.
    Biological control research.--The Committee has been 
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been 
taken by the Mid South Regional Research Center in the area of 
biological controls of cotton insect pests. The economic and 
environmental benefits of this research could eventually reduce 
the vulnerability of crops to major insect pests and create 
alternatives to traditional crop protection methods. The 
Committee continues funding for this project at the fiscal year 
1998 and budget request levels.
    Biomedical materials in plants.--The Committee is 
interested in the results of recent investigations indicating 
the possibility of growing bioengineered vaccines in tobacco 
plants and other crops. Yields of biomedicals produced through 
tobacco are high, efficacious, and low cost to produce. Further 
research is needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other 
plants as a medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical 
products for the prevention of many human and animal diseases. 
This technology also has the potential to shift a great deal of 
tobacco production to a vehicle for preventing, curing, and 
treating viruses and cancers in place of smoking, chewing, or 
other current end uses. The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 for ARS cooperative research with the Biotechnology 
Foundation, Inc., which has pioneered the concept of economical 
and effective bioengineered vaccines, antibodies, and enzymes 
through tobacco leaf tissue.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The 
Committee expects the agency to continue its work on the 
Corporation's research at the same level as fiscal year 1998.
    Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The 
Committee is aware of the significance of the research 
currently underway relating to catfish products at the 
Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology 
and supports the expansion of the program to include other 
foods.
    Cereal crops research.--The Cereal Crops Research Unit 
[CCRU], at Madison, WI, is essential and indispensable to U.S. 
barley variety development efforts and is the only national 
facility with integrated research and service functions 
focusing on the quality evaluation capacity. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1998 
level to increase the quality evaluation capacity of the CCRU 
research program to characterize and regulate quality factors 
in oats and barley, including malting quality improvement.
    Citrus tristeza.--The Committee recognizes that the citrus 
tristeza virus [CTV] is a serious threat to the U.S. citrus 
industry. CTV can cause citrus trees to die and/or cause 
reduced yield or the fruit to be so small as to be 
unmarketable. The Committee recommends continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1998 level for research on this devastating citrus 
disease.
    Club wheat breeding.--The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 level for the ARS Pacific 
Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.
    Cotton genetics.--The Committee recognizes the urgency to 
develop high-yielding cotton germplasm and continues support 
for the cotton genetics program at the Mid South Regional 
Research Center at the fiscal year 1998 level.
    Cotton ginning laboratories.--The Committee is aware of 
work performed by the Mid South Region USDA Cotton Ginning 
Laboratory aimed at increasing the efficiency of the cotton 
gins, while enhancing the capacity to comply with air quality 
standards throughout the entire southeastern United States and 
provides $250,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for ginning 
research at the Mid South laboratory. The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 levels for ginning research at 
the Mesilla Park, NM, and Lubbock, TX, laboratories.
    Cotton value-added/quality research.--U.S. agriculture's 
continued economic strength depends on efficient production and 
value-added technology. The Committee urges ARS to continue to 
place high priority on cotton textile processing research 
conducted at New Orleans, LA, to improve quality, reduce 
defects, and improve easy-care products. The Committee 
recommends funding at the budget request level for this 
research.
    Endophyte.--For the center of excellence in endophyte/grass 
research operated cooperatively by the University of Missouri 
and the University of Arkansas, the Committee recommends 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1998 level. The purpose of 
this research is to enhance the sustainability of fescue-based 
beef production and to develop innovative applications of 
endophyte in improving stress resistance in other forage, turf, 
and grain crop species.
    Fish disease research.--The Committee provides an 
additional $750,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level to increase 
scientific support for research on preventing infectious 
diseases in warmwater fish carried out at the ARS Fish Disease 
and Parasite Research Laboratory in Auburn, AL.
    Fish Farming Experiment Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $800,000 above the fiscal year 1998 level for 
the National Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, AR.
    The Committee acknowledges the importance of avoiding 
duplication in research being administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture at various locations throughout the 
country. In order to ensure that duplication does not occur in 
the field of warmwater aquaculture research, the Stuttgart 
research facility should not engage in channel catfish research 
related to production systems, nutrition, water quality, 
genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing which is 
ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center 
at Stoneville, MS.
    The Committee encourages all facilities to share research 
results to benefit and enhance the Nation's aquaculture 
industry.
    Forage crops.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for a research 
agronomist and soil scientist to accelerate research on 
improved forage crops at the Southern Plains Range Research 
Station in Woodward, OK.
    Formosan termite research.--The Committee continues funding 
at the fiscal year 1998 level for the ARS Southern Regional 
Research Center in New Orleans, LA, to coordinate efforts among 
local and Federal agencies, private industry, and universities 
to further research and application activities in combating 
Formosan termites in the United States.
    Fruit fly.--The Committee supports continued funding by ARS 
to provide $296,000 for the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to develop and 
implement a program to address control of the papaya ringspot 
virus, and $296,000 to establish nematode resistance in 
commercial pineapple cultivars. The Committee views the 
nematode resistance and ringspot activities as supportive of a 
national agricultural research agenda and that of Hawaii.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1998 
level of $242,600 for the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for collaborative work 
on developing and evaluating efficacious and nontoxic methods 
to control tephritid fruit flies.
    Fruit research.--The Committee is aware of the very 
important work carried out on fruit research at Wenatchee and 
Yakima in the State of Washington. The Committee expects the 
Department to continue to give increased attention to the work 
carried out at these two facilities. The Committee provides 
funding at the budget request levels for the Yakima and 
Wenatchee ARS facilities.
    Gardens Unit, National Arboretum.--The Committee provides 
an additional $250,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level to 
increase staffing of the Gardens Unit at the U.S. National 
Arboretum.
    Golden nematode.--The Committee is aware of the need to 
maintain a viable Golden Nematode Program both on a State and 
Federal level to maintain markets for the New York State 
potato, nursery, sod, and other root vegetable industries and 
to prevent the spread of this potentially devastating pest to 
other States. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 
from the fiscal year 1998 level to expand ARS research in plant 
breeding, nematology, and activities involving seed production 
and extension.
    Grain legume research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of a grain legume genetics research position at 
Washington State University in Pullman, WA, and continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 level to support this position. 
This research will focus on approaches to increase surface crop 
residues and on methods to overcome disease and insect problems 
in grain legumes.
    Grape horticulturist position, Prosser, WA.--The Committee 
acknowledges the importance of a horticulturist position 
specializing in grape production at the ARS station in Prosser, 
WA. The Committee recognizes that a research horticulturist is 
an important link to the research efforts conducted at the 
Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research Center at the ARS 
Corvallis, OR, station. The Committee believes that the 
position is important to address onsite production problems for 
Pacific Northwest grape growers. The Committee continues 
funding for the position and urges that more resources be 
placed on grape production research.
    Grasshopper research.--The Committee provides $750,000 for 
integrated pest management research on grasshopper control in 
the Delta Junction region of Alaska. ARS research employing 
biological control agents of grasshoppers can provide 
environmentally safe solutions to attack this insect pest of 
the State's major agricultural region.
    Grazinglands research.--The Grazinglands Research 
Laboratory at the Fort Reno, OK, ARS Research Station is 
working on the development of pasture management systems to 
enhance productivity and water quality in the southern Great 
Plains. The Committee provides an additional $250,000 from the 
fiscal year 1998 level to increase scientific support for this 
important research effort.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee provides 
$945,100, the same as the fiscal year 1998 level, for the 
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. The Committee expects these 
funds to be administered as in the past and be used to maintain 
the competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue 
emphasis on supporting the expansion of new crops and products 
to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
    Honey bee research.--The Committee is aware of the problem 
varroa mites are causing the U.S. beekeeping industry and 
provides an additional $250,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level 
for the ARS Honey-Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology 
Laboratory at Baton Rouge, LA, to develop a long-term genetic 
solution to the varroa mite crisis.
    Hops.--The Committee recognizes the outstanding increase in 
production of the U.S. hops industry. The industry has taken 
the lead in worldwide production, and Washington State produces 
75 percent of the total U.S. crop. Included in the 
recommendation is $491,000, the same as the fiscal year 1998 
level, to continue hops research in the Pacific Northwest.
    Integrated farming systems.--The Committee provides 
$497,100, the same as the fiscal year 1998 and budget request 
levels, to continue integrated farming systems [IFS] research 
through the ARS Dairy Forage Center, Madison, WI. The Committee 
expects the Department to develop at least four additional 
multistakeholder, interdisciplinary IFS partnerships from 
within its national program on IFS by next year.
    IR-4 project.--The Committee recognizes the importance of 
the IR-4 project, which produces research data for clearances 
for pest control products on minor food crops and ornamental 
commodities. The Committee recognizes the importance of this 
project and notes that it is especially critical at this time 
in order for the Department to meet the new requirements of the 
Food Quality Protection Act, and to fully implement its reduced 
risk pest management strategy for minor crops.
    Kenaf.--The Committee recommends continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1998 level for the cooperative agreement between 
ARS and Mississippi State University to further kenaf research 
and product development efforts.
    Manure handling and disposal.--Broiler growers presently 
face environmental constraints related to the safe handling of 
poultry manure. Phosphorus is the major component that limits 
land application as a fertilizer. The Committee provides an 
additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for the ARS 
Waste Management and Forage Research Unit and ARS Poultry 
Research Unit in Starkville, MS, to develop procedures for 
reducing the amount of phosphorous produced by each flock 
through nutrition and flock management, and to evaluate more 
efficient methods of handling and removal of litter.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides $14,571,000 for 
research on a replacement for methyl bromide. The Committee 
expects the ARS to direct research to those facilities and 
universities that have expertise or ongoing programs in this 
area.
    Minor crop pests.--The Committee provides continued funding 
at the fiscal year 1998 level of $281,000 for the University of 
Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to 
develop environmentally safe methods to control pests and 
diseases in small-scale tropical and subtropical agricultural 
systems.
    Mycoplasma research.--Mycoplasmosis, a respiratory disease 
in laying birds, continues as a major problem for egg 
producers. Although laying hens are protected by variant 
mycoplasma vaccines that cause hens to test positive for 
mycoplasmosis, these vaccines are pathogenic for broilers and 
turkeys. An additional $300,000 is provided from the fiscal 
year 1998 level for the ARS Poultry Research Laboratory at 
Starkville, MS, to initiate research on a vaccine that will 
insert protective genes into a nonpathogenic mycoplasma 
organism and be effective for laying birds, as well as safe for 
broilers and turkeys.
    National Center for Agricultural Law Research and 
Information.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1998 level for the National Center for Agricultural 
Law Research and Information at the Leflar School of Law in 
Fayetteville, AR.
    National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.--The 
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture [NCCCWA], 
now under construction on Federal lands at Leetown, Jefferson 
County, WV, will house the Nation's most advanced research 
programs aimed at efficiently producing flavorful, nutritious, 
cool, and cold water fish products. With U.S. imports of edible 
seafood products reaching a reported record level of 
$7,100,000,000 to $7,300,000,000 in 1997, resulting in a record 
seafood trade deficit of $4,300,000,000 to $4,600,000,000, the 
research of this Center offers tremendous economic 
opportunities for Appalachian farmers. In fiscal year 1998, the 
Congress provided $250,000 to initiate the Center's program. 
These funds were used to recruit a highly qualified scientist 
to serve as the research leader and to oversee the design and 
construction of the facility. The Committee supports the 
development of the NCCCWA and continues the fiscal year 1998 
level of funding for the Center.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 level for work now underway at 
the National Sedimentation Laboratory, and encourages the ARS 
to provide additional support to the laboratory in accordance 
with the approved cooperative agreement. The laboratory is to 
expand its studies on the use of acoustics to characterize 
soils, determine moisture content, and monitor crop growth. 
Further, it is encouraged to continue its close relationship 
with the National Center for Physical Acoustics in these 
research efforts and to develop additional applications.
    The Committee also is aware of the work of the National 
Sedimentation Laboratory relative to the management systems 
evaluation area project. The laboratory is making a significant 
contribution to nonpoint research and the Committee encourages 
the continued partnership between this outstanding laboratory 
and this project.
    National Warmwater Aquaculture Center.--The Committee 
increases support for the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center 
by $1,200,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level with the 
objective of ensuring that the rapidly growing aquaculture 
industry has the availability of essential production 
technology.
    Natural products.--The Committee provides an additional 
$750,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for the ARS to 
continue its cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
the Development of Natural Products for pharmaceutical research 
in support of research on natural products.
    Nonchemical control of pecan insect pests.--Pecans grown in 
the United States are presently dependent on chemical 
pesticides to control insect and mite pests. Such pests will 
largely destroy the ability of the United States to produce 
pecans if key chemical pesticides become unavailable without 
effective and practical alternatives. The Committee provides 
$250,000 to initiate research to develop nonchemical 
alternatives to the use of chemical pesticides to control fruit 
and foliar pests. This research is to be conducted at the ARS 
laboratory in Byron, GA.
    Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory.--The Northern 
Grain Insects Research Laboratory in Brookings, SD, conducts 
research critical to agriculture in the northern Great Plains. 
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1998 level to 
ensure that the Laboratory's research projects in areas such as 
corn rootworm management; integrated soil, crop and pest 
management strategies for sustainable production; control 
tactics and decision models for integrated pest management; and 
pest population ecology and behavioral mechanisms in cropping 
systems continue to be fully funded.
    Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center.--Nursery and 
greenhouse products rank third in the Nation and No. 1 in 
Oregon. As the public demands more and more plants and trees to 
help clean and cool the air, prevent water runoff and soil 
erosion, and improve water quality and conservation, the 
nursery industry is playing an expanding and significant 
environmental research role. The Committee encourages ARS to 
expand its support for the Northwest Nursery Crops Research 
Center's research program (Corvallis, OR) in these 
environmental areas. The Committee provides the fiscal year 
1998 level of funding for the ARS Corvallis station.
    Pasture and forage research.--The Committee provides 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1998 and budget request 
levels for the USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Center at 
Logan, UT. This Center is carrying out important work on new 
forages for grazing to reduce harvesting and feed costs, and 
increase production on irrigated, intensively grazed pastures. 
The Center already has made significant contributions in its 
releases of new and improved forages for use on semiarid 
western rangelands and irrigated, salty pasture lands. 
Competitive perennial grasses released by the Center have been 
the only known way to economically rehabilitate rangelands that 
have been infested with weedy species and/or burned by 
wildfires.
    Peach varieties research.--Further research is needed to 
develop additional peach varieties which are better able to 
withstand extreme weather conditions in the South. The 
Committee provides an additional $190,000 from the fiscal year 
1998 level to enhance peach varieties research carried out at 
the ARS laboratory in Byron, GA. This additional funding will 
allow for the staffing of a new position to manage the breeding 
program, the importation of foreign germplasm, and the 
development of molecular markers to facilitate the rapid 
identification and development of new varieties processing 
traits.
    Peanut quality research.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 
for ARS peanut quality research. Peanut research is of extreme 
importance to the U.S. peanut industry's national and 
international market competitiveness. Current methodologies to 
determine peanut quality are inadequate to provide farmers and 
growers with the technologies necessary to ensure that the 
highest quality peanuts reach the marketplace at the least 
cost. Research to improve quality and processing will also 
provide inspectors with reliable methods to detect toxic molds 
from nontoxic strains developed through ARS research.
    Pear thrips.--The Committee recognizes the value of 
collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to 
develop controls for pear thrips. Given the increased need for 
control of maple pests due to the tree damage inflicted by the 
January 1998 ice storm in the Northeast, the Committee provides 
an additional $100,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level to 
enhance this important research program.
    Plant diseases and genetics research, Columbia, MO.--The 
Committee recognizes the urgency to address plant diseases and 
link the existing soybean genomics and biotechnology programs 
to those existing for corn. The Committee provides an increase 
of $700,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for research 
conducted by the ARS at Columbia, MO, and directs the agency to 
fill the plant diseases position.
    Poisonous plants.--Poisonous plants continue to cause a 
significant loss to livestock producers. The USDA-ARS Poisonous 
Plant Research Laboratory, Logan, UT, conducts research on 
livestock poisoning by plants in the United States and provides 
assistance to livestock producers to reduce losses. The 
Committee provides an additional $200,000 from the fiscal year 
1998 level to adequately support research currently conducted 
at the Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory.
    Potato breeder position, Aberdeen, ID.--The Committee is 
aware that the current ARS potato breeder at the Aberdeen, ID, 
station plans to retire. The Committee provides an increase of 
$150,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level to maintain this 
important position.
    Potato late blight research.--The Committee is aware that 
late blight has become an ongoing problem in the Pacific 
Northwest. The Committee urges the Agricultural Research 
Service to continue its research at the Aberdeen, ID, ARS 
station to identify horticulturally acceptable clones with late 
blight resistance and both early generation and advanced clonal 
material that have a high level of resistance for use as 
crossing parents. The Committee urges the ARS to work with the 
National Potato Council on how funds can best be used for 
research priorities.
    Program continuations.--Including research programs 
specifically mentioned herein, the Committee directs the ARS to 
continue at the fiscal year 1998 level the following areas of 
research: Immunity and Diagnostics of Diseases and Parasites of 
Catfish, Auburn, AL; Plant Germplasm Conservation Research, 
Palmer, AK; Warmwater Foodfish Health Management Research, and 
Rice Genetics Research, Stuttgart, AR; Modification of 
Vegetable Oils as Raw Materials for Industrial Uses, In Vitro 
Creation and Commercialization of High Solids Tomatoes and 
High-Solids, Low Sugar Potatoes, and Biological Control of 
Yellow Starthistle and Other Non-indigenous Plant Pests in the 
Western USA, Albany, CA; Irrigated Desert Research II, Brawley, 
CA; Shallow Groundwater Management Systems for Arid Irrigated 
Areas, Fresno, CA; Floriculture, Washington, D.C.; Management 
of Termites as Urban Pests in the American Pacific, 
Gainesville, FL; Identification and Molecular Characterization 
of Agents Causing Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens, 
GA; Aquaculture Productivity Research Phase II, Hilo, HI; 
Development and Use of Molecular Techniques in Oat Enhancement, 
and Conduct and Coordination of Small Grains Germplasm 
Enhancement and Evaluation, Aberdeen, ID; Soybean Diseases, 
Urbana, IL; Limits to Digestibility and Interactions Among 
Quality, Growth, and Persistence of Forages, and Genetic 
Characterization of Soybean Germplasm, Ames, IA; Protecting 
Hard Red Winter Wheat from Biotic Stress, Manhattan, KS; 
Improving Sugarcane Productivity by Conventional and Molecular 
Approaches to Genetic Development, Disease and Insect Control 
Mechanisms for the Enhancement of Sugarcane Germplasm 
Resistance, and Developing Integrated Weed Management Systems 
for Efficient and Sustainable Sugarcane Production, Houma, LA; 
Management of Termites as Urban Pests in the American Pacific, 
New Orleans, LA; Potato Production and Disease Management 
Systems for the Northeast, Orono, ME; Ecologically-Based 
Technologies for Controlling Ixodes Scapularis and Reducing 
Lyme Disease, Remote Sensing and Associated Technologies for 
Production Decisions, Comparative Textural Analysis of Fresh 
and Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables, Enhancement of Strawberry, 
Blueberry, and Other Small Fruit Crops Through Molecular 
Approaches and Breeding, National Turfgrass Evaluation Program, 
Improving Quality of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce by Preventing 
Deterioration in Cold Storage, Production and Use of Rural/
Urban Waste Co-compost Microbial Processes, Beltsville, MD; 
Germplasm Evaluation and Genetic Improvement of Oats and Wild 
Rice, St. Paul, MN; Biologically Active Plant Compounds for 
Insect Control, and Biologically Active Phytochemicals, Oxford, 
MS; Small Fruit Cultural and Genetic Research in the Mid South, 
Poplarville, MS; Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Kenaf as 
a Field Crop in Mississippi, Development of High Yield, High 
Quality, and Environmentally Acceptable Cotton Production 
Systems, Catfish Genetics and Breeding Research, and Improve 
Production Efficiency in Aquaculture, Stoneville, MS; 
Strategies for Preventing Contamination of Surface Water by 
Pesticides, Nutrients and Sediments, and Genetic Mechanisms in 
Wheat, Columbia, MO; Optimizing Reproduction Efficiency to 
Enhance Profit and Sustainability of Range Beef Production, 
Miles City, MT; Metabolism and Nutritional Management of 
Prolific Sows During Gestation and Lactation, Clay Center, NE; 
Biology and Control of Virus Diseases of Sorghum, Lincoln, NE; 
Entomopathogenic Fungi as Biocontrol Agents of Pest Insects of 
Agricultural Crops, Ithaca, NY; Improved Peanut Product Quality 
and Bioactive Nutrient Composition with Genetic Resources, 
Factors Responsible for Control of the Textural Properties of 
Processed Sweetpotato Products, Evaluation of Temperate Legumes 
and Warm-Season Grass Mixtures in Sustainable Production 
Systems, Food Safety, Quality Improvement, and Waste Reduction 
in Brined and Fermented Vegetables, and Control of Fungal 
Pathogens of Small Grains, Raleigh, NC; Conservation Tillage-
Diverse Crop Systems to Use Water and Nutrients Efficiently 
Protect Environment, Water Management Systems to Sustain 
Production and Environmental Quality in the Northern Great 
Plains, Improvement of Forage Germplasm for Conservation and 
Forage-Livestock Systems in the Northern Great Plains, and 
Development of Integrated and Sustainable Forage Livestock 
Systems for the Northern Great Plains, Mandan, ND; Development 
of Soybean Germplasm and Production Systems for High Yield and 
Drought Prone Environments, Wooster, OH; Improving Resistance 
of Peanut to Biological Stress Through Germplasm and Cultural 
Enhancement, Stillwater, OK; Characterization of Induced 
Cytokinin Changes in Wheat, Partitioning of Photosynthate as 
Influenced by Genotype, Mycorrhizae and Air Enriched 
CO2, Residue Management and Grass Seed Cropping 
Systems for Sustainable Agriculture, Germplasm Enhancement and 
Cultivar Development of Blackberry, Strawberry, Blueberry and 
Raspberry, Hop Genetics and Breeding for Improved Flavor, 
Agronomic Performance, and Pest Resistance, and Effects of 
Beneficial Rhizosphere Microorganisms on Plant Growth and 
Health, Corvallis, OR; Value-Added Products from Fruit and 
Vegetable Processing Wastes, Wyndmoor, PA; Rice Germplasm and 
Variety Improvement in the Southern United States, Beaumont, 
TX; Harvesting and Ginning Technologies for Stripper Cotton, 
Lubbock, TX; Parasite Mite Control in Honey Bee Colonies 
Utilized in Honey Production and Crop Pollination, Weslaco, TX; 
Livestock Poisoning by Certain Heptotoxic and Neurotoxic 
Plants, Logan, UT; Intelligent Farm Management Systems, Viruses 
and Virus Resistance in Alfalfa Germplasm, Evaluation of 
Advanced Potato Clones for Resistance, Agronomic and Culinary 
Traits, Potato Production Systems to Conserve Resources and 
Reduce Pesticide Use, Bean and Pea Germplasm Enhancement for 
Disease and Environmental Stress Resistance, Herbicide Efficacy 
and Residues in Minor Acreage, and Potato Variety Development 
through Gene Transfer and Virology, Prosser, WA; Genetically 
Enhanced Wheat for Quality Productivity and Resistance to 
Biotic and Abiotic Stresses, Biochemical and Molecular 
Regulation of Preharvest Sprouting and Grain Dormancy in Wheat, 
Control of Foliar Diseases and Smuts of Wheat, Genetics and 
Germplasm Enhancement of Cool Season Food Legumes, Pullman, WA; 
Agroforestry Systems for the Appalachian Region, Beckley, WV; 
and Utilization of Waste and Byproducts from Aquaculture to 
Enhance Economic Sustainability, Leetown, WV.
    Rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,400,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for additional 
staffing at the Rice Germplasm Laboratory, Stuttgart, AR.
    Root diseases of wheat and barley.--The ARS Root Disease 
and Biological Control Research Unit, Pullman, WA, carries out 
the only research program on root diseases in wheat and barley. 
The development of acceptable methods to control root diseases 
represents a tremendous challenge, especially since the 
traditional approaches to control these diseases are either no 
longer acceptable or unavailable. Major breakthroughs on the 
relationship between root diseases and no-till management 
systems have been made, and the research unit is poised to 
provide major innovations in root disease management needed to 
achieve the high yields possible with intensive cereals and 
conservation tillage systems. The Committee provides an 
additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level for this 
research effort. Of the increased funds provided, $125,000 is 
to be transferred to the Oregon State University Columbia Basin 
Agriculture Research Center, Pendleton, OR; $75,000 is to be 
transferred to the University of Idaho Research and Extension 
Center, Kimberly, ID; and $300,000 is to remain in the ARS 
program at Pullman, WA.
    Rural geriatric nutrition research.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 1998 level of funding for the further 
development of a comprehensive nutrition outreach, treatment, 
and research program to assist the rural elderly population. 
The program will include a regional screening program to 
identify elderly individuals at nutritional risk and a 
coordinated case management initiative to deliver social, 
health, and nutritional interventions as appropriate. Geisinger 
Health System's Rural Geriatric Nutrition Center in Danville, 
PA, is the lead organization undertaking this initiative in 
collaboration with other universities.
    Silverleaf whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known 
as the sweetpotato whitefly, continues to cause millions of 
dollars in crop damage in several States, including Hawaii. The 
Committee recommends participation by all affected States in 
the national collaborative effort to control this pest.
    Small farms.--The Committee expects the ARS to continue its 
support for the South Central Family Farm Research Center at 
Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than the 1998 
level for the continuation of agroforestry research in 
conjunction with work at the University of Missouri.
    Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the ARS Small Fruits Research 
Laboratory in Poplarville, MS, as the only small fruits 
research station in the South, to the development of the 
southern blueberry and other small farm industries, such as 
strawberries, blackberries, vegetables, and other horticultural 
crops adapted to the Gulf State region. The Committee provides 
a $250,000 increase from the fiscal year 1998 level to 
strengthen scientific staffing at this research station.
    Small grains geneticist, Aberdeen, ID.--The Committee is 
aware that the ARS is considering the elimination of the small 
grains geneticist position at the USDA-ARS Aberdeen, ID, 
station. The Committee provides the fiscal year 1998 funding 
level to continue research to improve both barley and oat 
genetic stocks. This research provides direct benefits to the 
U.S. barley industry, including end users who rely on improved 
quality traits in malting barley.
    Southern Insect Management Laboratory.--For several years, 
the Committee has urged the Department to participate in a 
joint research project with the National Center for Physical 
Acoustics [NCPA]. The Committee continues the fiscal year 1998 
level of funding for a cooperative agreement with the National 
Center for Physical Acoustics to develop automated methods to 
monitor pest populations using advanced acoustic techniques; at 
least $180,000 of this amount will be used to support the 
existing program at the NCPA.
    Soybean research.--The Committee is aware of the important 
ARS-supported soybean genetics work being done and continues to 
strongly support ongoing research at Ames, IA, aimed at 
increasing the productivity and profitability of soybean 
production and processing. The Committee expects ARS to 
continue this research at not less than the fiscal year 1998 
funding level.
    Soybean and corn research.--The Committee is encouraged by 
research at the Mid South Regional Research Center aimed at 
increasing the productivity and profitability of soybeans. The 
Committee supports the continuation of these programs at 
current fiscal year 1998 levels and includes an additional 
$750,000 to expand this research program to improve corn 
production, including increasing farm profits through the use 
of corn and soybeans in rotations with cotton. It is 
anticipated that the additional funds provided will allow for a 
soybean breeder, a corn production specialist, and a molecular 
geneticist to be added to the current staff.
    Subterranean termite.--The Committee provides $143,200 to 
continue funding for the termite research work in Hawaii at the 
fiscal year 1998 level to address the substantial damage to 
forests and structures caused by subterranean termites in 
Hawaii and in other States with control methods that do not 
endanger public health and safety.
    Sugarcane biotechnology research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of furthering the science of molecular 
techniques in sugarcane. By mapping useful genes, transferring 
exotic genes into sugarcane germplasm, and improving selection 
techniques for sugarcane cultivars, much progress can be made 
to increase the efficiency and global competitiveness of the 
U.S. sugar industry. To continue the strong public/private 
relationship between ARS and the American Sugar Cane League and 
expand biotechnology at the work site of the ARS Southern 
Regional Research Center in Houma, LA, the Committee provides 
the fiscal year 1998 level of funding. The Committee expects 
ARS to collaborate with the American Sugar Cane League in 
efforts to coordinate research with other commodity-based 
biotechnology research and continue funding for this vital 
research.
    Tropical aquaculture research.--The Committee provides 
$1,603,300 to continue funding at the fiscal year 1998 level 
for the Aquaculture Productivity Research and the Requirements 
and Sources of Nutrients for Marine Shrimp projects in Hawaii 
to ensure continuation of the significant scientific and 
commercial contributions offered by the Oceanic Institute and 
natural resource conditions found only in Hawaii.
    Trout genome research.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 
to initiate trout genome research at the National Center for 
Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture. The Committee supports the 
recommendation by the National Animal Genome Research Program 
to map the genomes of rainbow trout, and recognizes the 
importance of this research in the ability to produce trout 
with economically desirable traits. The Committee expects a 
collaboration between the ARS and West Virginia University in 
developing a genetic map for trout.
    Viticulture research.--The Committee expects the ARS to 
provide increased emphasis on its viticulture research. The 
grape and wine industry is one of the largest agriculture 
industries in the Nation. Additional resources would help 
address needs in rootstock development, variety/clone 
development, vine cold hardiness, and other research. This is 
necessary if the United States is to remain competitive in the 
dynamic international marketplace.
    Water quality.--The Committee acknowledges the progress 
which has been made toward water quality objectives in 
conjunction with the pesticide application technology research 
currently conducted at the Mid South Regional Research Center. 
The ARS should continue this joint research initiative and 
expand it through the integrated pest management objectives 
outlined in the agency's budget request.
    Wind erosion research.--Each year, 5 million acres of U.S. 
cropland are moderately or severely damaged by wind erosion. 
Research carried out by the Wind Erosion Unit of the ARS Grain 
Production and Marketing Research Center in Manhattan, KS, will 
assume increased importance as erodible land originally 
contracted to reduce wind erosion is removed from the 
Conservation Reserve Program and replaced by land with 
environmental and wildlife benefits. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1998 level to 
increase support for this research.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $80,630,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      35,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,430,000

\1\ Of this amount, the President canceled a total of $1,500,000 in 
budget authority pursuant to Public Law 104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,430,000. This 
is $9,530,000 more than the budget estimate and $35,200,000 
less than the 1998 appropriation. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are indicated in the following table:

                      ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES                      
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
      State and facility            1998     1999 budget  recommendation
                                  enacted      estimate                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:                                                             
    U.S. Horticultural Crop                                             
     and Water Management                                               
     Research Laboratory,                                               
     Parlier..................       23,400  ...........  ..............
    Western Human Nutrition                                             
     Research Center, Davis...        5,200  ...........  ..............
Florida: Melaleuca research                                             
 and quarantine facility, Fort                                          
 Lauderdale...................  ...........        4,000  ..............
France: European Biological                                             
 Control Laboratory,                                                    
 Montpellier..................        3,400  ...........  ..............
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin                                              
 Agricultural Research Center.  ...........  ...........          4,500 
Illinois: National Center for                                           
 Agricultural Utilization                                               
 Research, Peoria.............        8,000        8,400          8,400 
Iowa: National Animal Disease                                           
 Center, Ames.................  ...........        5,600          5,600 
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing                                            
 Research Laboratory,                                                   
 Manhattan....................  ...........        1,400          1,400 
Louisiana: Southern Regional                                            
 Research Center, New Orleans.        1,100        6,000          6,000 
Maryland:                                                               
    Beltsville Agricultural                                             
     Research Center,                                                   
     Beltsville...............        3,200        2,500          2,500 
    National Agricultural                                               
     Library, Beltsville......        2,500        1,200          1,200 
Michigan: Avian Disease                                                 
 Laboratory, East Lansing.....        1,800  ...........  ..............
Mississippi:                                                            
    Biocontrol and Insect                                               
     Rearing Laboratory,                                                
     Stoneville...............      \1\ 900  ...........          1,100 
    National Center for                                                 
     Natural Products, Oxford.        7,000  ...........  ..............
Montana: Pest quarantine and                                            
 integrated pest management                                             
 facility, Sidney.............          606  ...........          7,300 
New Mexico: Jornado Range                                               
 Research Station, Las Cruces.          700  ...........  ..............
New York: Plum Island Animal                                            
 Disease Center, Greenport....        2,000        3,500          3,500 
North Dakota: Human Nutrition                                           
 Research Center, Grand Forks.        4,400  ...........  ..............
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional                                          
 Research Center, Philadelphia        5,000        3,300          3,300 
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable                                          
 Laboratory, Charleston.......        4,824  ...........  ..............
Utah: Poisonous Plant                                                   
 Laboratory, Logan............      \1\ 600  ...........            630 
West Virginia: National Center                                          
 for Cool and Cold Water                                                
 Aquaculture, Leetown.........        6,000  ...........  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................   \2\ 80,630       35,900         45,430 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget authority canceled by the President pursuant to Public Law   
  104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).                                            
\2\ Of this amount, total budget authority of $1,500,000 was canceled by
  the President pursuant to Public Law 104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).       

    The Committee provides funding for all projects requested 
in the budget, with the exception of the Melaleuca Research and 
Quarantine Facility. The Committee is aware of the importance 
of this facility to the restoration of the south Florida 
ecosystem. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 
already funded and undertaken planning and design work for this 
facility and the Committee continues its view that providing 
construction funds to the Corps of Engineers would best ensure 
the continuity of design and construction of this project.
    In addition, the Committee provides $4,500,000 to commence 
necessary planning, site selection, and design of the main 
laboratory/office building and rearing facility of the U.S. 
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii. This 
national center will address regional problems of production of 
crops and commodities that can strengthen local economies, 
preparation of these products for local markets or for export, 
and sanitation issues to permit transport. The Center shall 
define the role of the region in enhancing agriculture and 
agricultural trade in the entire United States, and also serve 
the State of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Marianas, and the other U.S.-affiliated Pacific 
islands. The Committee strongly encourages the ARS to designate 
a Center director to oversee and manage this project, and to 
coordinate construction and operations activities with the 
proposed expansion of USDA Forest Service facilities in Hawaii 
to achieve economies of scale.
    Funding also is provided by the Committee to construct the 
pest quarantine and integrated pest management facility in 
Sidney, MT. At the beginning of fiscal year 1996, ARS moved 
personnel and research from its Bozeman, MT, location to the 
ARS Northern Plains Soil and Water Research Center in Sidney. 
While this move has yielded long-term stability for the Sidney 
location and will achieve administrative savings over the long 
term, it created a need for a facility enhancement at Sidney. 
Planning and design work on the required pest quarantine 
facility, funded for fiscal year 1998, is scheduled to be 
completed by the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. 
Construction of the facility will accommodate the increased 
staff and research now being performed at the center.
    Further, the Committee includes funding for planning and 
design work to construct replacement facilities for the ARS 
Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Logan, UT, and biocontrol and 
insect rearing facilities in Stoneville, MS. Funding for this 
work was provided for fiscal year 1998 (Public Law 105-86) and 
canceled by the President (H. Doc. 105-179).
    The agricultural industry, particularly the range livestock 
industry, is critically dependent upon the productive research 
that has been conducted by the Poisonous Plant Laboratory. The 
Committee understands that the Laboratory, built over 40 years 
ago, is a metal building that has had four additions since that 
time to meet increasing laboratory and office space needs. The 
cobbling together of these additions has created a hodgepodge 
of inefficient heating and ventilation systems. Heating, 
ventilation, and air-conditioning currently is performed with 
four separate units and is noncompliant with OSHA standards. 
During the fiscal year 1999 budget process, USDA reaffirmed to 
the Committee that the existing facility has reached its useful 
life expectancy and is inadequate for state-of-the-art 
research, and that a new laboratory/office building is needed 
and recommended for the ARS Poisonous Plant Laboratory.
    USDA indicated in a March 19, 1997, report to the Committee 
that one of the primary factors limiting the development of new 
biologically based technologies is ARS' inability to produce 
high quality and effective agents at economically acceptable 
costs. The report indicates that although ARS conducts insect 
rearing at nearly 30 locations, most of these operations are 
location specific and produce only a small number of insects 
for limited use. The three major facilities currently operated 
by ARS are located in Starkville and Stoneville, MS, and 
Honolulu, HI. These facilities are severely outdated and no 
longer capable of fulfilling current or anticipated research 
and development needs, including those in support of new 
areawide integrated pest management [IPM] technologies. The 
report calls for combining the two facilities in Mississippi 
into a new laboratory and pilot plant capable of developing and 
supporting USDA insect rearing capabilities for nationwide IPM 
and biocontrol pest management programs, as well as 
constructing a new laboratory in Hawaii to address research 
needs for fruit fly control in fruit and vegetable crops. The 
Committee's recommendation includes funds to begin planning and 
design work for construction of both facilities.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on 
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The 
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State 
Research Service and Extension Service. The mission 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

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $431,410,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     412,589,000
Committee recommendation................................     434,782,000

\1\ Of this amount, the President canceled a total of $440,000 in budget 
authority pursuant to Public Law 104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For research and education activities of the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $434,782,000. This amount is $3,372,000 more than 
the 1998 appropriation and $22,193,000 more than the budget 
request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities of the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
                    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES                   
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Committee 
                                      1998      1999 budget   recommen- 
                                 appropriation                  dation  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act.......       168,734      153,672      173,796 
Cooperative forestry research                                           
 (McIntire-Stennis)............        20,497       19,882       21,112 
Payments to 1890 colleges and                                           
 Tuskegee......................        27,735       27,735       28,567 
Special research grants (Public                                         
 Law 89-106):                                                           
    Aegilops cylindricum                                                
     (Washington)..............           346   ...........         346 
    Aflatoxin (Illinois).......           113   ...........         113 
    Agriculture-based                                                   
     industrial lubricants                                              
     (Iowa)....................           200   ...........         250 
    Agricultural                                                        
     diversification (Hawaii)..           131   ...........         131 
    Agricultural                                                        
     diversification--Red River                                         
     Trade Corridor (Minnesota,                                         
     North Dakota).............           250   ...........         250 
    Alliance for food                                                   
     protection (Georgia,                                               
     Nebraska).................           300   ...........         300 
    Alternative crops (North                                            
     Dakota)...................           550   ...........         550 
    Alternative marine and                                              
     fresh water species                                                
     (Mississippi).............           308   ...........         308 
    Alternative salmon products                                         
     (Alaska)..................           400   ...........         400 
    Animal science food safety                                          
     consortium (Arkansas,                                              
     Iowa, Kansas).............         1,521   ...........       1,521 
    Apple fireblight (Michigan,                                         
     New York).................           500   ...........         500 
    Aquaculture (Illinois).....           158   ...........  ...........
    Aquaculture (Louisiana)....           330   ...........         330 
    Aquaculture (Mississippi)..           642   ...........         592 
    Aquaculture product and                                             
     marketing development                                              
     (West Virginia)...........           600   ...........         750 
    Babcock Institute                                                   
     (Wisconsin)...............           312   ...........         407 
    Binational agricultural                                             
     research and development                                           
     fund (United States-                                               
     Israel)...................           500        2,000          400 
    Biodiesel research                                                  
     (Missouri)................           152   ...........         152 
    Center for Animal Health                                            
     and Productivity                                                   
     (Pennsylvania)............           113   ...........  ...........
    Center for Innovative Food                                          
     Technology (Ohio).........           281   ...........  ...........
    Center for Rural Studies                                            
     (Vermont).................            32   ...........          70 
    Chesapeake Bay aquaculture.           370   ...........         370 
    Citrus decay fungus                                                 
     (Arizona).................           250   ...........  ...........
    Coastal cultivars (Georgia)           250   ...........         250 
    Competitiveness of                                                  
     agricultural products                                              
     (Washington)..............           677   ...........         677 
    Cool season legume research                                         
     (Idaho, Washington).......           329   ...........         329 
    Contagious equine metitis                                           
     (Kentucky)................  .............  ...........         250 
    Cotton research (Texas)....           200   ...........         200 
    Cranberry/blueberry disease                                         
     and breeding (New Jersey).           220   ...........         220 
    Dairy (Alaska).............       \1\ 250   ...........  ...........
    Dairy and meat goat                                                 
     research (Texas)..........            63   ...........          63 
    Delta rural revitalization                                          
     (Mississippi).............           148   ...........         148 
    Drought mitigation                                                  
     (Nebraska)................           200   ...........         200 
    Ecosystems (Alabama).......           500   ...........  ...........
    Environmental research (New                                         
     York).....................           486   ...........  ...........
    Environmental risk factors--                                        
     cancer (New York).........           100   ...........         100 
    Expanded wheat pasture                                              
     (Oklahoma)................           285   ...........         285 
    Farm and rural business                                             
     finance (Illinois)........            87   ...........          87 
    Feed barley for rangeland                                           
     cattle (Montana)..........           600   ...........         600 
    Floriculture (Hawaii)......           250   ...........         250 
    Food and Agriculture Policy                                         
     Institute (Iowa, Missouri)           800   ...........         800 
    Food irradiation (Iowa)....           200   ...........         200 
    Food Marketing Policy                                               
     Center (Connecticut)......           332   ...........         332 
    Food Processing Center                                              
     (Nebraska)................            42   ...........          42 
    Food quality (Alaska)......  .............  ...........         350 
    Food safety................         2,000        5,000        2,000 
    Food Systems Research Group                                         
     (Wisconsin)...............           221   ...........         221 
    Forestry (Arkansas)........           523   ...........         523 
    Fruit and vegetable market                                          
     analysis (Arizona,                                                 
     Missouri).................           296   ...........  ...........
    Generic commodity promotion                                         
     research and evaluation                                            
     (New York)................           212   ...........  ...........
    Global change..............         1,000        1,567        1,000 
    Global marketing support                                            
     service (Arkansas)........           127   ...........         127 
    Grain sorghum (Kansas).....           106   ...........         106 
    Grass seed cropping systems                                         
     for a sustainable                                                  
     agriculture (Washington,                                           
     Oregon, Idaho)............           423   ...........         423 
    Human nutrition (Iowa).....           473   ...........         473 
    Human nutrition (Louisiana)           752   ...........         752 
    Human nutrition (New York).           622   ...........  ...........
    Hydroponic tomato                                                   
     production (Ohio).........       \1\ 140   ...........  ...........
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance                                          
     for Biotechnology.........         1,184   ...........       1,184 
    Improved dairy management                                           
     practices (Pennsylvania)..           296   ...........  ...........
    Improved fruit practices                                            
     (Michigan)................           445   ...........         445 
    Institute for Food Science                                          
     and Engineering (Arkansas)           950   ...........       1,250 
    Integrated production                                               
     systems (Oklahoma)........           161   ...........         161 
    International arid lands                                            
     consortium................           329   ...........         329 
    International agricultural                                          
     market structures and                                              
     institutions (Kentucky)...  .............  ...........         250 
    Iowa biotechnology                                                  
     consortium................         1,564   ...........       1,564 
    Landscaping for water                                               
     quality (Georgia).........           300   ...........  ...........
    Livestock and dairy policy                                          
     (New York, Texas).........           445   ...........  ...........
    Lowbush blueberry research                                          
     (Maine)...................           220   ...........         220 
    Maple research (Vermont)...           100   ...........         100 
    Michigan biotechnology                                              
     consortium................           675   ...........         675 
    Midwest Advanced Food                                               
     Manufacturing Alliance....           423   ...........         423 
    Midwest agricultural                                                
     products (Iowa)...........           592   ...........         592 
    Milk safety (Pennsylvania).           268   ...........         250 
    Minor use animal drugs (IR-                                         
     4)........................           550          550          550 
    Molluscan shellfish                                                 
     (Oregon)..................           400   ...........         400 
    Multicommodity research                                             
     (Oregon)..................           364   ...........         364 
    Multicropping strategies                                            
     for aquaculture (Hawaii)..           127   ...........         127 
    National biological impact                                          
     assessment................           254          254          254 
    Nematode resistance genetic                                         
     engineering (New Mexico)..           127   ...........         127 
    Nonfood uses of                                                     
     agricultural products                                              
     (Nebraska)................            64   ...........          64 
    Oil resources from desert                                           
     plants (New Mexico).......           175   ...........         175 
    Organic waste utilization                                           
     (New Mexico)..............           100   ...........  ...........
    Pasture and forage research                                         
     (Utah)....................           225   ...........         225 
    Peach tree short life                                               
     (South Carolina)..........           162   ...........         162 
    Pest control alternatives                                           
     (South Carolina)..........           106   ...........         106 
    Phytophthora root rot (New                                          
     Mexico)...................           127   ...........         127 
    Plant, drought, and disease                                         
     resistance gene cataloging                                         
     (New Mexico)..............           150   ...........         150 
    Plant genome research                                               
     (Ohio)....................        \1\ 50   ...........  ...........
    Postharvest rice straw                                              
     (California)..............           300   ...........  ...........
    Potato research............         1,214   ...........       1,214 
    Poultry carcass removal                                             
     (Alabama).................           300   ...........  ...........
    Precision agriculture                                               
     (Kentucky)................  .............  ...........         500 
    Precision agriculture                                               
     (Mississippi).............           600   ...........       1,000 
    Preharvest food safety                                              
     (Kansas)..................           212   ...........         212 
    Preservation and processing                                         
     research (Oklahoma).......           226   ...........         226 
    Rangeland ecosystems (New                                           
     Mexico)...................           185   ...........         185 
    Regional barley gene                                                
     mapping project...........           348   ...........         348 
    Regionalized implications                                           
     of farm programs                                                   
     (Missouri, Texas).........           294   ...........         294 
    Rice modeling (Arkansas)...           296   ...........         296 
    Rural development centers                                           
     (Pennsylvania, Iowa, North                                         
     Dakota, Mississippi,                                               
     Oregon)...................           423          423          423 
    Rural Policies Research                                             
     Institute (Nebraska,                                               
     Missouri,  Iowa)..........           644   ...........         644 
    Russian wheat aphid                                                 
     (Colorado)................           200   ...........         200 
    Seafood and aquaculture                                             
     harvesting, processing,                                            
     and marketing                                                      
     (Mississippi).............           305   ...........         305 
    Small fruit research                                                
     (Oregon, Washington,                                               
     Idaho)....................           212   ...........         300 
    Southwest consortium for                                            
     plant genetics and water                                           
     resources.................           338   ...........         338 
    Soybean cyst nematode                                               
     (Missouri)................           450   ...........         450 
    STEEP III--water quality in                                         
     Northwest.................           500   ...........         500 
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     (Michigan)................           445   ...........         445 
    Sustainable agriculture and                                         
     natural resources                                                  
     (Pennsylvania)............            94   ...........          95 
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     systems (Nebraska)........            59   ...........          59 
    Sustainable beef supply                                             
     (Montana).................  .............  ...........         500 
    Sustainable pest management                                         
     for dryland wheat (Mon-                                            
     tana).....................           400   ...........         400 
    Swine waste management                                              
     (North Carolina)..........           300   ...........         300 
    Tillage, silviculture,                                              
     waste management                                                   
     (Louisiana)...............           212   ...........         212 
    Tropical and subtropical...         2,724   ...........       2,724 
    Urban pests (Georgia)......            64   ...........          64 
    Vidalia onions (Georgia)...            84   ...........          84 
    Viticulture consortium                                              
     (California, New York)....           800   ...........         800 
    Water conservation (Kansas)            79   ...........          79 
    Water quality..............         2,461        2,757        2,461 
    Weed control (North Dakota)           423   ...........         423 
    Wheat genetic research                                              
     (Kansas)..................           261   ...........         261 
    Wood utilization (Oregon,                                           
     Mississippi, Minnesota,                                            
     North Carolina, Maine,                                             
     Michigan).................         3,536   ...........       3,536 
    Wool (Texas, Montana,                                               
     Wyoming)..................           300   ...........         300 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, special research                                           
       grants..................    \2\ 51,495       12,551       49,200 
                                ========================================
Improved pest control:                                                  
    Critical issues............           200          200          200 
    Integrated pest management.         2,731        8,000        2,731 
    IR-4 minor crop pest                                                
     management................         8,990       10,711        8,990 
    Pesticide impact assessment         1,327        1,327        1,327 
    Expert IPM decision support                                         
     system....................           177          260          177 
    Pest management                                                     
     alternatives programs.....         1,623        4,200        1,623 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, improved pest                                              
       control.................        15,048       24,698       15,048 
                                ========================================
Competitive research grants:                                            
    Plant systems..............        37,000       47,000       37,000 
    Animal systems.............        24,000       29,500       24,000 
    Nutrition, food quality,                                            
     and health................         8,000       11,000        8,000 
    Natural resources and the                                           
     environment...............        17,500       27,000       17,500 
    Processes and new products.         6,800        9,000        6,800 
    Markets, trade, and policy.         3,900        6,500        3,900 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, competitive                                                
       research grants.........        97,200      130,000       97,200 
                                ========================================
Animal health and disease (sec.                                         
 1433).........................         4,775        4,775        4,918 
Critical Agricultural Materials                                         
 Act...........................           550   ...........         600 
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)         4,000        3,880        4,000 
Alternative crops..............           650   ...........         550 
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        1,494 
Graduate fellowship grants.....         3,000        3,000        3,000 
Institution challenge grants...         4,350        4,350        4,350 
Multicultural scholars program.         1,000        1,000        1,000 
Hispanic education partnership                                          
 grants........................         2,500        2,500        2,500 
Federal administration:                                                 
    Agriculture development in                                          
     the American Pacific......           564   ...........         564 
    Agriculture waste                                                   
     utilization (West                                                  
     Virginia).................           360   ...........         360 
    Alternative fuels                                                   
     characterization                                                   
     laboratory (North Da-                                              
     kota).....................           218   ...........         218 
    Animal waste management                                             
     (Oklahoma)................           250   ...........         250 
    Center for Agricultural and                                         
     Rural Development (Iowa)..           355   ...........         355 
    Center for Human Nutrition                                          
     (Maryland)................           150   ...........  ...........
    Center for North American                                           
     Studies (Texas)...........            87   ...........  ...........
    Data information system....           800        2,000          800 
    Geographic information                                              
     system....................           844   ...........         844 
    Mariculture (North                                                  
     Carolina).................           150   ...........         250 
    Mississippi Valley State                                            
     University................           583   ...........         583 
    National Center for Peanut                                          
     Competitiveness (Georgia).           150   ...........         150 
    Office of Extramural                                                
     Programs..................           310          310          310 
    Pay costs and FERS.........           900        1,236          900 
    Peer panels................           350          350   ...........
    PM-10 study (California,                                            
     Washington)...............           873   ...........         873 
    Shrimp aquaculture (Hawaii,                                         
     Mississippi, Arizona,                                              
     Massachusetts, South                                               
     Carolina).................         3,354   ...........       3,354 
    Water quality (Illinois)...           492   ...........  ...........
    Water quality (North                                                
     Dakota)...................           436   ...........         436 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, Federal                                                    
       administration..........        11,226        3,896       10,247 
                                ========================================
      Total, Cooperative State                                          
       Research, Education, and                                         
       Extension Service,                                               
       research and education                                           
       activities..............   \2\ 431,410      412,589      434,782 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget authority canceled by the President pursuant to Public Law   
  104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).                                            
\2\ Of this amount, total budget authority of $440,000 was canceled by  
  the President pursuant to Public Law 104-130 (H. Doc. 105-179).       

    Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $48,850,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $592,000 provided for 
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for 
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture 
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical 
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agriculture and 
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and 
Extension Center in Stoneville.
    Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to 
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are 
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds 
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato 
industry working group.
    Water quality.--The Committee expects a continuation of 
funding at current levels for the Agricultural Systems for 
Environmental Quality Program and the Management Systems 
Evaluation Area Program.
    Aquaculture centers.--The Committee provides $4,000,000, 
the same as the 1998 level, to support the regional aquaculture 
centers.
    Integrated pest management [IPM].--The Committee expects 
CSREES to develop guidelines for implementation of its IPM 
research and extension program to ensure broad-based 
representation that includes farmers, nonprofit organizations, 
agribusiness, universities, and public agencies. Program 
guidelines should ensure extensive farmer participation in 
merit review and other aspects of the program, and will 
emphasize on-farm research and demonstration, close 
coordination among States and between the research and 
extension functions, and explicit plans for communicating 
usable results to intended users and interested audiences.
    Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and recommends funding of $97,200,000.
    The Committee remains determined to see that quality 
research and enhanced human resources development in the 
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. 
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that 10 
percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for a 
USDA experimental program to stimulate competitive research 
[USDA-EPSCoR].
    Alternative crops.--The Committee recommends $550,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue research on canola.
    Sustainable agriculture.--The Committee recommends 
$8,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the 1998 
level.
    Higher education.--The Committee recommends $10,850,000 for 
higher education. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for 
graduate fellowships; $4,350,000 for challenge grants; 
$1,000,000 for multicultural scholarships; and $2,500,000 for 
grants for Hispanic education partnership grants. Of the funds 
appropriated for the Challenge Grants Program, the Committee 
directs that funds be made available to support the continued 
operation of the food and agricultural education information 
system [FAEIS].
    Federal administration.--The Committee provides $10,597,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee 
recommends $844,000, the same as the fiscal year 1998 level. 
The Committee recommends the same amounts as in 1998 for each 
of the participating entities in Georgia, the Chesapeake Bay, 
Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. 
Also, it is expected that program management costs will be kept 
to a minimum and any remaining funds will be distributed to the 
sites.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 1998....................................    ($4,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     (4,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................     (4,600,000)

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (29 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal 
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of 
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted 
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these 
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being 
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the 
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the 
1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee recommends $4,600,000. This is the same as the budget 
request and the 1998 level.

                          extension activities

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $423,376,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     418,651,000
Committee recommendation................................     432,181,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $432,181,000. This amount is $8,805,000 more 
than the amount provided for 1998 and $13,530,000 more than the 
budget estimate.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities:

       EXTENSION ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION      
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year                             
                                    1998     Fiscal year     Committee  
                                  enacted    1999 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and                                           
 3(c).........................      268,493      257,753        276,548 
Smith-Lever section 3(d):                                               
    Farm safety...............        2,855  ...........          2,855 
    Food and nutrition                                                  
     education................       58,695       56,347         58,695 
    Food safety...............        2,365        7,365          2,365 
    Indian reservation agents.        1,672        5,000          1,756 
    Pest management...........       10,783       15,000         10,783 
    Pesticide applicator                                                
     training.................  ...........        1,500  ..............
    Pesticide impact                                                    
     assessment...............        3,214        3,313          3,214 
    Rural development centers.          908          908            908 
    Sustainable agriculture...        3,309        3,309          3,309 
    Water quality.............        9,061        9,061          9,061 
    Youth at risk.............        9,554       10,000          9,554 
Renewable Resources Extension                                           
 Act..........................        3,192        3,192          3,192 
1890 colleges and Tuskegee....       25,090       25,090         25,843 
1890's facilities grants......        7,549       12,000          8,304 
Agricultural                                                            
 telecommunications...........          900  ...........            900 
Rural health and safety                                                 
 education....................        2,628  ...........          2,628 
Extension services at the 1994                                          
 institutions.................        2,000        3,500          2,060 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................      412,268      413,338        421,975 
                               =========================================
Federal administration and                                              
 special grants:                                                        
    General administration....        4,995        5,313          4,995 
    Beef producers improvement                                          
     (Arkansas)...............          197  ...........            197 
    Delta Teachers Academy....        3,500  ...........          3,500 
    Extension specialist                                                
     (Arkansas)...............           99  ...........             99 
    Extension specialist                                                
     (Mississippi)............           50  ...........            100 
    Income enhancement                                                  
     demonstration (Ohio).....          246  ...........  ..............
    Integrated cow/calf                                                 
     management (Iowa)........          300  ...........            250 
    National Center for                                                 
     Agriculture Safety (Iowa)          195  ...........            225 
    Pilot technology project                                            
     (Wisconsin)..............          163  ...........  ..............
    Pilot technology transfer                                           
     (Oklahoma and                                                      
     Mississippi).............          326  ...........  ..............
    Range improvement (New                                              
     Mexico)..................          197  ...........            197 
    Rural development (New                                              
     Mexico)..................          247  ...........            247 
    Rural development                                                   
     (Oklahoma)...............          150  ...........            150 
    Rural rehabilitation                                                
     (Georgia)................          246  ...........            246 
    Wood biomass as an                                                  
     alternative farm product                                           
     (New York)...............          197  ...........  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Federal                                               
         administration.......       11,108        5,313         10,206 
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total, extension                                                
         activities...........      423,376      418,651        432,181 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Farm safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee includes $1,910,000 for the AgrAbility project being 
carried out in cooperation with the National Easter Seal 
Society.
    Pest management.--Included in the amount provided by the 
Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1998 level for potato late 
blight control, including $400,000 for early disease 
identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and 
late blight research activities in Maine.
    Rural health and safety.--The Committee recommends 
$2,628,000, the same as the fiscal year 1998 level, for rural 
health and safety education. Included in this amount is 
$2,150,000 for the ongoing rural health program in Mississippi 
to train health care professionals to serve in rural areas, and 
$478,000 for the ongoing rural health and outreach initiative 
in Louisiana.

  Office of Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $618,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         642,000
Committee recommendation................................         618,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $618,000. This is the same as the 1998 level and $24,000 
less than the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, APHIS  
                                                           Appropriations       User fees        appropriations 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998...................................   \1\ $337,932,000  \2\ ($88,000,000)  \1\ ($425,932,000
                                                                                                               )
Budget estimate, 1999 \3\..............................        317,752,000  \2\ (100,000,000)      (417,752,000)
Committee recommendation...............................        329,473,000   \2\ (95,000,000)      (424,473,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $350,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                               
\2\ Does not include additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996
  direct appropriation.                                                                                         
\3\ The budget assumes enactment of new 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.
    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.
    Plant and animal health monitoring.--The Agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and disease management programs.--The Agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such 
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
Agency.
    Animal care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities 
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and 
horses as required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection 
Acts. These activities include inspection of certain 
establishments which handle animals intended for research, 
exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.
    Scientific and technical services.--The Agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed 
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals; 
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and 
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered 
products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of 
$424,473,000. This is $1,459,000 less than the 1998 
appropriation and $6,721,000 more than the budget request. The 
amount provided includes the transfer in fiscal year 1998 of 
$151,000 from departmental administration resulting from the 
abolishment of the central dispute resolution function and the 
return of EEO counselors to the individual agencies. The 
Committee's recommendation does not include the $909,000 
provided for fiscal year 1998 by the Department of State in 
support of the International Cooperative Administrative Support 
Service [ICASS] Program. The Committee expects that ICASS 
Program costs will continue to be funded by the Department of 
State for fiscal year 1999. Further the Committee does not 
assume the $9,935,000 in total savings from new user fees 
proposed in the budget.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE               
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year                
                               Fiscal year   1999 budget     Committee  
                              1998 enacted     request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:                                             
    Agricultural quarantine                                             
     inspection.............       26,747        30,648         28,747  
    User fees ..............       88,000       100,000         95,000  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, agricultural                                            
       quarantine inspection     (114,747)     (130,648)      (123,747) 
                             ===========================================
    Cattle ticks............        4,627         4,852          4,627  
    Foot-and-mouth disease..        3,803         3,846          3,803  
    Sanitary/phytosanitary                                              
     standards:                                                         
        Import-export                                                   
         inspection.........        6,815         7,263          6,815  
        International                                                   
         programs...........        6,630         8,243          6,630  
    Fruit fly exclusion and                                             
     detection..............       20,970        22,322         20,970  
    Screwworm...............       31,713        30,623         30,301  
    Tropical bont tick......          444           414            407  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and                                                
       disease exclusion....      189,749       208,211        197,300  
                             ===========================================
Plant and animal health                                                 
 monitoring:                                                            
    Animal health monitoring                                            
     and surveillance.......       61,464        65,017         61,764  
    Animal and plant health                                             
     regulatory enforcement.        5,855         6,036          5,855  
    Pest detection..........        6,302         6,685          6,302  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, plant and                                               
       animal health                                                    
       monitoring...........       73,621        77,738         73,921  
                             ===========================================
Pest and disease management                                             
 programs:                                                              
    Aquaculture.............          567           583            567  
    Biological control......        6,275         8,467          8,160  
    Boll weevil.............       16,209         4,090         16,209  
    Brucellosis eradication.       19,818        11,654         11,864  
    Golden nematode.........          435           419            435  
    Gypsy moth..............        4,366         4,702          4,366  
    Imported fire ant.......        1,000   ............         1,000  
    Miscellaneous plant                                                 
     diseases...............        1,516         1,461          1,410  
    Noxious weeds...........          454           382            424  
    Pink bollworm...........        1,048   ............         1,048  
    Pseudorabies............        4,481         4,567          4,481  
    Scrapie.................        2,931         3,199          2,931  
    Sweetpotato whitefly....        1,877   ............  ..............
    Tuberculosis............        4,920         5,012          4,920  
    Wildlife services                                                   
     operations.............       28,487        26,051         28,797  
    Witchweed...............        1,638         1,546          1,506  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and                                                
       disease management...       96,022        72,133         88,118  
                             ===========================================
Animal care:                                                            
    Animal welfare..........        9,175         6,374          9,175  
    Horse protection........          353           361            353  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, animal care.        9,528         6,735          9,528  
                             ===========================================
Scientific and technical                                                
 services:                                                              
    Biotechnology/                                                      
     environmental                                                      
     protection.............        8,132         7,393          8,132  
    Integrated systems                                                  
     acquisition............        3,500         3,696          3,500  
    Plant methods                                                       
     development                                                        
     laboratories...........        5,048         4,891          4,693  
    Veterinary biologics....       10,345         7,098         10,345  
    Veterinary diagnostics..       15,622        16,065         15,622  
    Wildlife services                                                   
     methods development....       10,215         9,687         10,215  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, scientific                                              
       and technical                                                    
       services.............       52,862        48,830         52,507  
                             ===========================================
Contingency fund............    \1\ 4,150         4,105          3,099  
                             ===========================================
      Total, salaries and                                               
       expenses.............      425,932       417,752        424,473  
                             ===========================================
Recap:                                                                  
    Appropriated............  \1\ 337,932       317,752        329,473  
    Agricultural quarantine                                             
     inspection user fees...   \2\ 88,000   \2\ 100,000     \2\ 95,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $350,000 (Public Law 105-174).       
\2\ Does not include additional resources from the Federal Agricultural 
  Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct appropriation.       

    Agricultural quarantine inspection [AQI].--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act (Public Law 104-
127) makes amounts in excess of $100,000,000 in the AQI user 
fee account directly available for program operations. Amounts 
collected in the user fee account up to $100,000,000 are 
subject to appropriation. The Committee has provided 
$95,000,000 from the AQI user fee account. The Department has 
estimated that an additional $43,500,000 will be collected and 
available as provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law 104-127).
    The Committee urges the Department actively to seek 
procedural and/or treatment methods that allow shipment of 
untreated Hawaiian-grown fruit to cold-weather States during 
winter months without jeopardizing pest introductions to 
mainland agriculture.
    The Committee continues its interest in protecting domestic 
agriculture in the continental United States from the 
introduction of alien pests while not disrupting tourist 
traffic in Hawaii. From within the available funds, the 
Committee directs the agency to provide not less than the 
fiscal year 1998 level of funding for sufficient staff-year 
equivalents of agricultural quarantine inspectors, operating 
funds, and inspection equipment to ensure timely and 
nondisruptive preclearance inspection services at Hawaii's 
direct departure and interline airports.
    The Committee also recognizes the need for cost-effective 
approaches to preclearance baggage inspection at Hawaii's 
direct departure and interline airports. The Committee directs 
the agency to test and evaluate new inspection technologies and 
other methods and hiring arrangements for conducting these 
inspections at Hawaii airports. The agency is further 
instructed to report to the Committee on progress made with 
these activities by January 30, 1999.
    Plant protection and quarantine.--The Committee directs the 
agency to fill vacancies at the Gulfport office once the 
Southeast Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Plant Protection and Quarantine is transferred to the eastern 
hub.
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance.--The Committee 
intends that $500,000 be used by APHIS to continue the project 
to develop a reliable livestock identification and tracking 
system to monitor, control, eradicate animal diseases, and 
enhance the safety of the Nation's meat supply.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1998 
level for enforcement of the Commercial Transportation of 
Equine for Slaughter Act.
    The Committee also provides $300,000 for the assessment of 
the economic threat posed by a newly described contagious 
equine metritis-like bacterium [CEM] for the U.S. horse 
industry.
    The Committee is encouraged by the agency's actions on the 
national poultry improvement plan [NPIP] and continues funding 
at the fiscal year 1998 level for this purpose.
    Biological control.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known as 
the sweetpotato whitefly, line item is incorporated into the 
biocontrol line item, as proposed in the budget. Funding for 
the silverleaf program is continued at the fiscal year 1998 
level.
    The Committee is concerned about the serious threat to 
pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii. The 
Committee directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
[NRCS] to develop an integrated approach, including 
environmentally safe biological controls for eradicating these 
pests, and to provide funds as necessary.
    Boll weevil.--The Committee recognizes that referenda have 
been passed by cotton producers in the Mesilla Valley and in 
Luna County in the State of New Mexico to create boll weevil 
control districts. The Committee encourages APHIS to continue 
to provide monitoring and technical assistance as needed for 
cotton boll weevil detection and eradication in New Mexico.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1998 funding level 
to the agency to continue the geographic information system 
development so that the economic and entomological efficiency 
of the boll weevil eradication program can continue to improve. 
The technology developed through this system will be 
transferred to those cotton production regions as the program 
expands, reducing overall program costs.
    Brucellosis eradication.--The Committee directs the agency 
to work in cooperation with the State of Montana to protect the 
State's brucellosis-free status. For the operation of the bison 
quarantine facility and all operations associated with the 
facility and the testing of bison which have left Yellowstone 
National Park, the Committee provides $500,000.
    The Committee encourages the agency to provide sufficient 
resources to safeguard livestock, help control diseases in 
wildlife, and minimize the impact on intrastate and interstate 
movement of livestock in the Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana 
portions of the greater Yellowstone area by performing 
brucellosis inoculations.
    Imported fire ants.--The Committee provides the fiscal year 
1998 funding level to continue the work that is being conducted 
at the University of Arkansas at Monticello on imported fire 
ants and to coordinate such activities with the cooperative 
extension abatement program.
    Noxious weeds.--The Committee continues the demonstration 
project on kudzu at the fiscal year 1998 funding level.
    The Committee encourages the agency to continue working 
with the State of Texas regarding orobanche ramosa.
    Wildlife services operations.--Funding at the fiscal year 
1998 level is provided to continue cattail management and 
blackbird control efforts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Louisiana.
    The Committee notes the important and unique features of 
State and local cooperator activities in the implementation of 
wildlife services operations and disagrees with the 
Department's recommendation to impose higher cost share 
requirements on cooperating entities. The Committee encourages 
continued cost sharing of control activities to the maximum 
extent possible in all States.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1998 
level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture 
Research Center, formerly known as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' 
Association, for rodent control in sugarcane and macadamia nut 
crops.
    Given the threat to the region from introduced animal 
pests, the Committee supports increased onsite coordination of 
prevention and control activities in Hawaii and the American 
Pacific and provides $300,000 to establish and operate a 
wildlife services office in Hawaii.
    The Committee provides $400,000 and includes language in 
the bill to require the Secretary to prevent the inadvertent 
introduction of brown tree snakes into Hawaii and other parts 
of the United States.
    The Committee provides an increase of $175,000 for coyote 
and wolf control programs for livestock operators in Montana. 
Due to the reintroduction of the wolf and reports required by 
the wolf program, the State of Montana has suffered financially 
in its operations account for wildlife services.
    The Committee expects the Department to maintain the animal 
damage control office in Vermont at the fiscal year 1998 level.
    The Committee is concerned about the spread of raccoon 
rabies in the Northeast (Ohio, Vermont, and New York) and 
directs the agency to continue the elimination of the spread of 
rabies in this area at the level of $800,000, the same as 
fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee encourages the Department to initiate an 
evaluation of fish-eating birds to determine and quantify the 
impacts of population management strategies, including roost 
dispersal, with the goal of establishing populations acceptable 
to fish farmers, sport fisherman, and conservationists.
    The Committee is encouraged by the accomplishments of the 
cooperative work aimed at reducing the damages caused by 
beavers in the Delta National Forest and other silviculture and 
agricultural areas of Mississippi. The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 level for the beaver damage 
control assistance program to further reduce timber losses and 
damages to public roads, bridges, and cropland.
    Horse protection.--The Committee is concerned about the 
implementation of the Department's recently released strategic 
plan for the Horse Protection Act, proposing to transfer 
certain enforcement responsibilities of the act to six horse 
industry organizations with inspection programs formally 
approved and certified by the agency. The Committee believes 
that a written enforcement agreement needs to be negotiated and 
executed between APHIS and each of these six horse industry 
organizations to reduce Department and industry 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 the written enforcement agreement the following 
elements: (1) a uniform horse inspection and grading system, to 
be used by both Department and industry inspectors at horse 
shows, exhibitions, sales or auctions which utilizes only 
definable standards and generally accepted equine medical 
principles; and (2) a fair and effective system for resolving 
disputes between Department and industry inspectors which are 
within the authority of the act. 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 February 1, 1999, to ensure their use 
during the 1999 show season. The Committee requests the agency 
to provide a copy of the written enforcement agreement between 
the agency and the six horse industry organizations by February 
15, 1999.
    The Committee does not intend to interfere in any way with 
the proper enforcement of the Horse Protection Act.
    Avocados.--The Committee is encouraged by the agency's work 
with United States avocado growers in implementing procedures 
for the importation of Mexican avocados that meet phytosanitary 
standards. The Committee expects APHIS to provide an update on 
the status of Mexican avocado imports and any violations of the 
regulations governing them.
    Grasshopper/Mormon cricket control.--The Committee 
recognizes the seriousness of grasshopper population control to 
the health of both rangeland and crop production in Western 
States. The Committee expects the agency to use moneys 
available in the no-year reserve fund for the management of 
western grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations. 
Furthermore, should the need arise, the Committee directs APHIS 
to supplement funds for grasshopper and Mormon cricket control 
as a priority use of its contigency funds.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,200,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $4,200,000. This amount is the same as the 1998 level and 
$1,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee directs 
the agency to enter into a cooperative agreement to begin 
construction of a large animal biosafety level-3 containment 
facility in Montana within available funds.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $46,567,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      58,469,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,567,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $25,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$45,567,000. This amount is $1,000,000 less than the 1998 
appropriation and $12,902,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to construct a National 
Organic Program that takes into account the needs of small 
farmers. The Committee directs the Secretary to establish a 
progressive user fee scheme so that small farmers, handlers, 
and certification agents are not excessively burdened. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs that not less than $250,000 
of the funds available for the National Organic Program be used 
to offset the initial costs of accreditation services, a 
subsidy necessary due to the lack of Department expertise in 
organic accreditation and insufficient data on the industry. 
Also, the Committee directs the Secretary to follow the 
recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board, as 
required by the 1990 farm bill, in issuing final regulations as 
to what substances are on the national list.
    The Vermont Department of Agriculture has received very 
positive preliminary results on the feasibility of establishing 
a year-round public market in Burlington, Vermont's largest 
city. This could open up an important new market for farmers in 
Vermont and New York, especially for the 3,577 farms within a 
50-mile radius of the city. The Committee encourages AMS to 
consider a grant to assist in the predevelopment of the 
Burlington Public Market.
    The city of Anchorage is developing plans for a statewide 
seafood market to be located at Ship Creek as a central 
location where buyers from across the country and the world may 
come to purchase Alaska wild salmon and other fresh and 
processed seafood products. The Committee strongly urges AMS to 
consider a grant to develop the Anchorage Seafood Cooperative 
Market.

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 1998........................................   ($59,521,000)
Budget limitation, 1999.................................    (60,730,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (59,521,000)

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $59,521,000. 
This amount is the same as the 1998 level and $1,209,000 less 
than the budget request.

          funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply

                              (section 32)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $10,690,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,998,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,998,000

    Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts 
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused 
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption 
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is 
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers 
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition 
Service have been provided in recent appropriation acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1997-99:

                ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 1997-99               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--                   
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1998 current      1999 current  
                                                               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 Consumer 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    -5,113,884,015
                                                           =====================================================
Budget authority..........................................       423,242,705       512,982,418       587,981,802
Unobligated balance available, start of year..............       300,000,000       233,868,236       129,335,198
Recoveries of prior-year obligations......................        38,784,325  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
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  ................
        Diversion payments................................         9,000,000  ................  ................
        Disaster relief...................................         2,150,000         7,000,000  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $10,998,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is the same as the 
budget estimate and $308,000 more than the 1998 level.
    In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent 
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The 
Committee expects the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to 
continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon and 
salmon nuggets and determine whether or not there is a surplus 
and continued low prices in fiscal year 1999. If there is 
surplus salmon and continued low prices in fiscal year 1999, 
the Committee expects the Department to purchase surplus 
salmon.

                   payments to states and possessions

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $1,200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       1,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,200,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State 
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides 
$1,200,000. This amount is the same as the budget request and 
the 1998 appropriation.
    The Department is strongly encouraged to consider a grant 
to the State of Alaska to develop markets for the promotion of 
Alaska agricultural products.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $25,390,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................      11,797,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,390,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $38,000 and $1,500,000 supplemental 
appropriation to recapitalize the revolving fund (Public Law 105-174).
\2\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($21,476,000) offset by 
startup costs of $4,200,000.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers 
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $26,390,000. This amount is $14,593,000 more 
than the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the 1998 
level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $2,500,000 for one-
time relocation costs associated with the restructuring of the 
Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Committee does not 
assume the $17,276,000 in net savings from new user fees 
proposed in the budget.

                    inspection and weighing services

        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

Limitation, 1998........................................   ($43,092,000)
Budget limitation, 1999.................................    (42,557,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (42,557,000)

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a $42,557,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the budget estimate and $535,000 less than the 1998 
level.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $446,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         598,000
Committee recommendation................................         446,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $446,000. This amount 
is the same as the level provided for 1998 and $152,000 less 
than the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $588,761,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................     149,566,000
Committee recommendation................................     605,149,000

\1\Reflects enacted rescission of $502,000 (Public Law 105-174).
\2\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($573,434,000) offset by 
startup costs of $100,000,000.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $605,149,000. This amount is 
$16,388,000 more than the 1998 level and $455,583,000 more than 
the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the transfer in 
fiscal year 1998 of $155,000 from departmental administration 
resulting from the abolishment of the central dispute 
resolution function and the return of EEO counselors to the 
individual agencies. The Committee does not assume the 
collection of user fees amounting to $573,000,000 and an 
implementation cost of $100,000,000, as presented in the budget 
request.
    Funding also is included for the Federal inspection of 
Florida's operations and transactions within the State since 
the State terminated its funding for the Cooperative State 
Inspection Program. The Committee provides funding for Federal 
inspection requirements within the parameters of the Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Program [HACCP] to assure the 
continued safety of the Nation's food supply.
    Due to spending constraints, the Committee has deferred 
funding proposed in the budget for risk assessment and 
education, including the voluntary producer education program, 
and assistance to States.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department has not 
expeditiously replaced its command and control regulations with 
performance standards giving the regulated industry more 
flexibility. The Committee encourages the Department to 
eliminate these requirements since HACCP has been implemented 
in larger meat and poultry plants.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  1999 budget       Committee   
                                                                1998 estimates      request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal food inspection......................................     $492,587,000     $515,660,000     $507,979,000
Import/export inspection.....................................       11,724,000       12,217,000       12,056,000
Laboratory services..........................................       35,472,000       37,032,000       36,486,000
Field automation.............................................        8,023,000        8,525,000        8,023,000
Grants to States.............................................       40,955,000       41,719,000       40,655,000
Special assistance for State programs........................  ...............        7,847,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................      588,761,000      623,000,000      605,149,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
New user fees................................................  ...............     -573,434,000  ...............
Startup costs................................................  ...............      100,000,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      588,761,000      149,566,000      605,149,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $572,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         597,000
Committee recommendation................................         572,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $572,000. This amount is the same as the 1998 
appropriation and $25,000 less than the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the 
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers 
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs 
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse 
examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], 
and several other cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and 
operating, and emergency disaster and other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the 
Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the 
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production 
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant's 
prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well 
as total program participation, each contract participant 
shares a portion of a statutorily specified, annual dollar 
amount. In return, participants must comply with certain 
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection, 
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for 
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, 
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production 
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for 
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
    Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, 
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 act provides for 
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract 
commodities, extra long staple [ELS] cotton, and oilseeds for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, 
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment 
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus 
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. However, with 
respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary must allow repayment 
of marketing loans at the adjusted world price. And, 
specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance 
loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the 
lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest, 
or the adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness 
provisions are unchanged, except that the total expenditures 
under step 2 during fiscal years 1996 through 2002 cannot 
exceed $701,000,000. 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 1 percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than 
CCC's cost of money for that month.
    The 1996 act amended the payment limitation provisions in 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act), by 
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for 
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment 
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000 
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan 
gains 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 three 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 are utilized in the administration of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the 
Agency is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
    The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address 
high-priority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC 
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of 
the programs financed through CCC.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to specific statutory authorizations and 
directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480.
    Farm credit programs.--FSA reviews applications, makes and 
collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance 
to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs 
associated with agricultural credit insurance fund [ACIF] loans 
are appropriated to the ACIF program account and transferred to 
FSA salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--FSA administers the noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP] which provides crop loss 
protection for growers of many crops for which crop insurance 
is not available.

                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, FSA,   
                                                            Appropriations    Transfers from      salaries and  
                                                                             program accounts       expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\.................................      $699,579,000    ($211,265,000)  \1\ ($910,844,000
                                                                                                               )
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\................................       723,478,000     (229,190,000)  \2\ (952,668,000)
Committee recommendation.................................       710,842,000     (211,265,000)      (922,107,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $1,080,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                             
\2\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($10,000,000).                                                    

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, 
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the 
Committee recommends $922,107,000. This is $11,263,000 more 
than the 1998 level and $30,561,000 less than the budget 
request. The amount provided includes the transfer in fiscal 
year 1998 of $485,000 from departmental administration 
resulting from the abolishment of the central dispute 
resolution function and the return of EEO counselors to the 
individual agencies.
    The Committee's recommendation continues funding to prevent 
further non-Federal county office closings beyond those already 
agreed to by the administration and Congress. Under the 1994 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's reorganization plan, the 
administration was scheduled to close a total of 373 county 
offices by the end of fiscal year 1997. Five county offices 
were closed in the beginning of fiscal year 1998 to achieve 
this closure plan goal. In fiscal year 1998, the administration 
proposed and Congress approved that no more than an additional 
1,500 Farm Service Agency field offices be closed. Included in 
the Committee's recommendation is an increase of $10,000,000 
which the budget proposes to collect through new user fees to 
fund 223 non-Federal county staff-years. This amount, along 
with the amount of $7,650,000 requested and provided by the 
Committee for non-Federal county staff-years, will support the 
administration's request of 9,980 total non-Federal staff-
years.

                         state mediation grants

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       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 the Farm Service Agency [FSA]. 
Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the 
State's agricultural mediation program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for State mediation 
grants. This is the same as the amount provided in 1998 and 
$2,000,000 less than the budget request.

                        dairy indemnity program

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $550,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         450,000
Committee recommendation................................         450,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends 
$450,000. This is $100,000 less than the 1998 amount and the 
same as the budget request.

           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and 
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types 
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, 
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The 
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an 
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a 
specified initial period.
    FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to 
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having 
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The following programs are financed through this fund:
    Farm ownership loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. An 
insured loan may not exceed $200,000 and a guaranteed loan may 
not exceed $300,000. Loans are made for 40 years or less.
    Farm operating loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. An 
insured loan may not exceed $200,000 and a guaranteed loan is 
limited to $400,000. The term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 
years.
    Emergency disaster loans.--Made available in designated 
areas (counties) and in contiguous counties where property 
damage and/or severe production losses have occurred as a 
direct result of a natural disaster. Areas may be declared by 
the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by 
the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.
    Credit sales of acquired property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 
loans.
    Indian tribe land acquisition loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire 
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or 
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the 
members thereof.
    Boll weevil eradication loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of 
$2,368,250,000. This is $622,784,000 less than the budget 
request and $32,443,000 less than the 1998 level.
    The Committee continues funding for the operation of a loan 
program to be made available to grower organizations authorized 
to carry out activities related to boll weevil eradication. The 
Committee expects USDA to ensure that these loans supplement 
rather than replace funds directly provided to APHIS to meet 
its cost share of the boll weevil eradication program.
    The following table reflects the program levels for farm 
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to 1998 and the 
budget request:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS                                   
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1998 current                      Committee  
                                                   1998 enacted      estimate       1999 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................      \1\ 78,320      \1\ 63,872          85,000          63,872
    Guaranteed..................................     \2\ 425,000     \2\ 425,000         425,031         425,000
Farm operating:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................     \3\ 565,000     \3\ 560,472         500,000         560,472
    Guaranteed unsubsidized.....................     \4\ 992,906     \4\ 992,906       1,700,000         992,906
    Guaranteed subsidized.......................     \5\ 235,000     \5\ 235,000         200,000         235,000
Indian tribe land acquisition...................           1,000           1,002           1,003           1,000
Emergency disaster..............................      \6\ 25,000      \6\ 25,002          25,000          25,000
Boll weevil eradication loans...................      \7\ 53,467      \7\ 40,000          30,000          40,000
Credit sales of acquired property...............          25,000          25,000          25,000          25,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................       2,400,693       2,368,254       2,991,034       2,368,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated $18,320,000 increase funded by supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by Public
  Law 105-174.                                                                                                  
\2\ Includes estimated $25,000,000 increase funded by supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by Public
  Law 105-174.                                                                                                  
\3\ Includes estimated $70,000,000 increase funded by supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by Public
  Law 105-174.                                                                                                  
\4\ Reflects estimated reduction of $707,094,000 from enacted rescission of loan subsidy appropriation (Public  
  Law 105-174).                                                                                                 
\5\ Includes estimated $35,000,000 increase funded by supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by Public
  Law 105-174.                                                                                                  
\6\ Does not include additional $87,400,000 funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation (Public 
  Law 105-174).                                                                                                 
\7\ Includes estimated $18,814,000 increase funded by supplemental loan subsidy appropriation provided by Public
  Law 105-174.                                                                                                  

           loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Subsidies                           Administrative expenses          
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Insured     Guaranteed                                 Transfer to                
                                                                        loan         loan         Total     Appropriations       FSA        Total ACIF  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998..............................................  $55,019,000  $50,678,000  $105,697,000    $10,000,000   $209,861,000    $219,861,000
Budget estimate, 1999.............................................   56,620,000   43,958,000   100,578,000     10,000,000    227,673,000     237,673,000
Committee recommendation..........................................   57,731,000   38,815,000    96,546,000     10,000,000    209,861,000     219,861,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee  
                                                                   1998 enacted     1999 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Farm ownership:                                                                                             
        Direct..................................................       \1\ 8,329          12,725           9,562
        Guaranteed..............................................      \2\ 16,407           6,758           6,758
    Farm operating:                                                                                             
        Direct..................................................      \3\ 36,823          34,150          38,280
        Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................      \4\ 11,617          19,720          11,518
        Guaranteed subsidized...................................      \5\ 22,654          17,480          20,539
    Indian tribe land acquisition...............................             132             153             153
    Emergency disaster..........................................       \6\ 6,008           5,900           5,900
    Boll weevil eradication loans...............................         \7\ 472             432             576
    Credit sales of acquired properties.........................           3,255           3,260           3,260
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies...................................         105,697         100,578          96,546
ACIF expenses...................................................         219,861         237,673         219,861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $2,389,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                           
\2\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $967,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                             
\3\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $4,599,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                           
\4\ Reflects enacted rescission of $8,273,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                             
\5\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $3,374,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                           
\6\ Does not reflect enacted emergency supplemental of $21,000,000 (Public Law 105-174).                        
\7\ Reflects enacted supplemental of $222,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                             

                         Risk Management Agency

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Administrative       Sales                    
                                                                   and operating  commissions of       Total    
                                                                     expenses         agents                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................     $64,000,000    $188,571,000    $252,571,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................      66,000,000         ( \1\ )      66,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      64,000,000         ( \1\ )      64,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes payment of all delivery expenses from mandatory funds.                                              

    Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] 
Act of 1996, risk management activities previously performed by 
the Farm Service Agency will be performed by the new Risk 
Management Agency.
    Risk management includes 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. Functional areas 
of risk management 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk 
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$64,000,000. This is $2,000,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the 1998 level.
    Cotton producers participating in the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program pay significantly higher premiums and receive 
a lower indemnity per dollar of coverage when compared to other 
major commodities. In addition, cotton insurance premiums vary 
greatly among otherwise similar regions with little 
explanation. Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
agency to carry out a study to review current cotton crop 
insurance rates, rating practices, and compare current rates to 
other major commodities. The Committee urges the agency to use 
independent experts representing all geographic cotton-growing 
areas. The Committee expects the agency to report to the 
Committee no later than December 31, 1998.

                              CORPORATIONS

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed 
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc 
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance 
program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $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. Under the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are 
offered the option of waiving their eligibility for emergency 
crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT coverage to meet 
program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not 
include emergency loans or payment under the Noninsured 
Assistance Program [NAP]. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the 
Secretary began phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through 
the FSA offices, and in 1998 designated the private insurance 
providers as the sole source provider of CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies 
for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for 
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 
percent level at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or 
greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount 
is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 
50 percent 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 
implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management, 
under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program will remain with 
the Farm Service Agency and be incorporated into the Commodity 
Credit Corporation program activities.

                federal crop insurance corporation fund

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................  $1,584,135,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................   1,504,036,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,504,036,000

\1\ RMA applied a portion of its unobligated balance to cover expenses 
in fiscal year 1998, thus reducing the appropriation required to 
$700,000,000.
\2\ The budget requests such sums as may be necessary to remain 
available until expended.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of 
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 
delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as 
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public 
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
    All program costs for 1999, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, estimated to be $1,504,036,000. This is $80,099,000 
less than the amount provided in 1998. The budget requested a 
current indefinite appropriation and estimated the amount to be 
$1,504,036,000.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996; the 
Agricultural Act of 1949 (1949 act); the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act of 1938 (1938 act); and the Food Security Act of 
1985 (1985 act).
    The 1996 act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: 7-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 7-year production flexibility contracts were offered to 
eligible landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 1996, 
with some contracts being available in subsequent years for 
eligible contract-commodity acreage in the CRP program that, 
prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the 
contract expires. Statutorily established fixed dollar amounts 
are to be distributed annually among contract participants 
according to statutory formulas. With the exception of 
limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be 
planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract acreage 
must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract 
participants must comply with applicable land conservation and 
wetland protection requirements.
    Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of 
ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to 
producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of 
such commodities are contract participants. Marketing loan 
provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all 
such commodities except ELS cotton.
    The peanut loan program as provided by the 1996 act is 
accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the 
1938 act. The loan rate for quota peanuts is set at $610 per 
ton for each of the crop years, 1996 through 2002. The quota 
poundage floor (1.35 million tons in 1995) authorized by the 
1938 act for 1995 is eliminated for the 1996 through 2002 
crops. The 1996 act also amends the peanut provisions of the 
1938 act pertaining to undermarketings of farm quotas and 
transfers of quotas across county lines.
    The 1996 act created a recourse loan program for sugar that 
reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if 
the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million 
short tons (raw value) in any fiscal year, 1997-2002. The 1996 
act suspends marketing allotment provisions in the 1938 act and 
implements a 1-cent-per-pound penalty if cane sugar pledged as 
collateral for a Corporation loan is forfeited. A similar 
penalty applies to beet sugar.
    The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 act is 
supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by 
the 1938 act. The tobacco program provisions in both acts were 
not affected by the 1996 act.
    Milk prices are supported each year through the end of 
calendar year 1999 at statutorily established levels through 
purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar 
year 1996 support level was $10.35 per hundredweight for milk 
containing 3.67 percent butterfat, and the rate declines 
annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999. A 
recourse loan program for commercial processors of dairy 
products begins on January 1, 2000. The recourse loan rate is 
to be established for eligible dairy products at a level that 
reflects a milk equivalent value of $9.90 per hundredweight of 
milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than 
CCC's cost of money for that month. Moreover, the Corporation's 
use of funds for purchases of information technology equipment, 
including computers, is more restricted than it was prior to 
enactment of the 1996 act.
    The 1996 act amends the 1985 act to establish the 
Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program [ECARP], 
which encompasses the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], the 
Wetland Reserve Program [WRP], and the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program [EQIP]. Each of these programs is funded 
through the Corporation.
    The CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4 
million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that 
are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary 
is to allow participants to terminate any CRP contract entered 
into prior to January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided 
the contract has been in effect for at least 5 years. The 
Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future 
early outs and future sign-ups of lands that meet enrollment 
eligibility criteria.
    WRP is reauthorized through the year 2002, not to exceed 
975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996, 
one-third of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements, 
one-third in 30-year easements or less, and one-third in 
wetland restoration agreements with cost sharing; 75,000 acres 
of land in less than permanent easements must be placed in the 
program before any additional permanent easements are placed.
    A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established 
to assist crop and livestock producers deal with environmental 
and conservation improvements on the farm. The 1996 act 
authorizes program funding of $200,000,000 annually for fiscal 
years 1997 through 2002. One-half of the available funds are 
for addressing conservation problems associated with livestock 
operations and one-half for other conservation concerns. Five- 
to ten-year contracts, based on a conservation plan will be 
used to implement the program.
    The 1996 act also authorizes other new Corporation-funded 
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option, 
flood risk reduction contracts, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by 
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may 
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending 
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation 
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to 
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing 
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes, 
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation 
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 reimbursement for net realized losses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $783,507,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............................   8,439,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   8,439,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
Corporation for net realized losses, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, but not to 
exceed $8,439,000,000. This is $7,655,493,000 more than the 
amount provided for 1998. The budget requested a current 
indefinite appropriation and estimated the amount to be 
$8,439,000,000.

Food Security Commodity Reserve

    The Committee urges USAID and USDA to manage the Food 
Security Commodity Reserve effectively to meet international 
food aid commitments of the United States, including 
supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet emergency 
food needs.

       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

Limitation, 1998........................................    ($5,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     (5,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................     (5,000,000)

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Commodity Credit Corporation operations and maintenance 
for hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a 
limitation of $5,000,000. This amount is the same as the 1998 
level and the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $693,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         719,000
Committee recommendation................................         693,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$693,000. This amount is the same as the amount provided in 
1998 and $26,000 less than the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                        conservation operations

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $632,853,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................     742,231,000
Committee recommendation................................     638,231,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $378,000 (Public Law 105-174).
\2\ Includes funding for the watershed surveys and planning and 
technical assistance for watershed and flood prevention operations. Also 
assumes enactment of user fees ($10,000,000).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $638,231,000. This amount is $5,378,000 more 
than the 1998 level and $104,000,000 less than the budget 
estimate. The amount provided restores to the base $378,000 
rescinded for fiscal year 1998 and includes the transfer in 
fiscal year 1998 of $133,000 from departmental administration 
resulting from the abolishment of the central dispute 
resolution function and the return of EEO counselors to the 
individual agencies. The Committee does not assume the 
$10,000,000 in net savings from new user fees proposed in the 
budget.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1998 level of 
funding to continue work on the Great Lakes Basin Program for 
soil and erosion sediment control.
    The Committee includes the fiscal year 1998 level for the 
grazing land conservation assistance program begun in fiscal 
year 1997. The agency is directed to establish a system to 
provide an accounting of funds used for this program within 
conservation operations. The Committee directs the agency to 
utilize these funds specifically for grazing research, 
demonstration, education, training, technical assistance, and 
related activities.
    The Committee also includes $600,000 for canal improvements 
and construction for the Long Beach Water Management District 
project, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to support ongoing 
community-based assistance for the Knapps Creek watershed 
project. This effort would be the first fluvial 
geomorphological stream restoration endeavor in West Virginia.
    The Committee is concerned about the serious threat to 
pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii and 
directs the agency to work with the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture and APHIS to develop an integrated approach, 
including environmentally safe biological controls, for 
eradicating these pests and to make funds available as 
necessary.
    The Committee encourages the agency to continue with 
planning and development of a watershed work plan and an 
environmental assessment plan for the New Porters Bayou, MS.
    The Committee encourages the agency to allocate at least 
the 1998 level of funding to support the Federal-State 
partnership to address the Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog 
basins.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1998 level of 
funding for financial and technical assistance for Franklin 
County, MS.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1998 level of 
funding to continue support of agricultural development and 
resource conservation in the native Hawaiian homestead 
communities served by the Molokai Agriculture Community 
Committee on the Island of Molokai.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 1998 level of 
funding for plant material centers, and directs that $1,000,000 
be used to continue development of warm season grasses for use 
in the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] and the Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program [WHIP].
    The Committee recognizes that technology development and 
transfer within the agency is the foundation for sound and 
productive land management practices and conservation program 
policies. The Committee encourages enhanced efforts by the 
agency to find, develop, support, and transfer technology among 
all the Department's natural resources conservation programs.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for selective debris 
removal from Okatoma Creek, MS, to minimize disturbances to 
fisheries resources.
    The Committee recognizes that West Virginia leads the 
Nation in erosion of pastureland. The State has approximately 
1.6 million acres of permanent pasture, and 1.3 million is 
eroding beyond the soil's ability to replenish itself. The 
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1998 level for 
the grazing lands initiative in West Virginia to help reduce 
current erosion.
    The Committee provides an additional $450,000 from the 
fiscal year 1998 level for the delta study which is aimed at 
water conservation, alternative water supply evaluations, and 
environmental planning. This additional funding will allow the 
recommendations identified in the study to be implemented in 
cooperation with the local sponsor.
    The Committee is aware that the Department has the 
authority to designate national priority areas under the 
guidelines of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
[EQIP]. The Committee directs the agency to evaluate the 
applications for fiscal year 1999 and proceed to provide 
adequate funding for not less than two national priority area 
pilot projects.
    The Committee directs the agency to establish a pilot 
project in Washington, Sharkey, and Yazoo Counties, MS, to 
clarify and conclusively determine the proper classification 
and taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils. This pilot 
project should conform to all scientific methods utilized in 
soil taxonomy and reclassification and should be coordinated 
with soil scientists at land-grant universities in the region. 
Methods used in this soil reclassification study should serve 
as a standard for subsequent soil survey and reclassification 
efforts by the agency. The subcommittee expects the agency to 
report on the progress of this project no later than January 
31, 1999.
    The Committee is aware that problems have arisen in the 
Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] related to the adverse impacts 
of the program on landowners adjacent to tracts under easement 
restrictions. The Committee encourages the agency to structure 
terms of the WRP contracts so that high priority is given to 
the considerations of adjacent landowners, including but not 
limited to the maintenance of watershed protection.
    The language ``to the maximum extent practicable'' found in 
section 333(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform [FAIR] Act should be interpreted to mean that acceptance 
of WRP bids may be in proportion to landowner interest 
expressed in program options. The goal shall remain that 
landowners be offered a choice among permanent and nonpermanent 
easements as well as cost-share agreements.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue 
existing cooperative agreements with private conservation 
organizations to support the implementation of the Wetlands 
Reserve Program.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Tri-Valley 
watershed, a part of the Central Utah Completion Act, for 
improvement to canals and to provide pressurized irrigation 
water to 3,700 acres.
    The Committee provides $75,000 for the Big Nance Creek, AL, 
for installation of the three remaining flood water retarding 
dams.
    The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from fiscal 
year 1998 to increase the Hawaii Plant Materials Center's 
capability to propagate native plants to support the Federal 
cleanup of the Island of Kahoolawe, and to serve as mentor for 
the startup of native plant nurseries.
    The Committee urges the agency to use locally led 
assessments through the existing programs to evaluate odor and 
water quality pollution risk areas.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for technical assistance 
for the planning and design of the Deep Creek watershed project 
in Yadkin County, NC.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from the 
fiscal year 1998 level for composting demonstration sites of 
poultry litter and wood products in West Virginia. The 
Committee recognizes that poultry litter has tremendous 
potential as a value-added product, and this demonstration 
project is an important extension of the poultry litter export 
efforts being carried out through the Potomac headwaters land 
treatment water quality project.
    The Committee supports the GIS Center for Advanced Spacial 
Technology in Arkansas, its development of digital soil maps, 
and the continuation of the National Digital Orthophotography 
Program. NRCS has been the lead agency within the Department 
for the development of GIS capabilities, and the Committee 
urges it to maintain its relationship with the center.
    The Committee provides an additional $600,000 from the 
fiscal year 1998 level to address the loess hills erosion in 
western Iowa.
    The Committee urges the agency to provide additional 
support to continue work on Poinsett Channel main ditch No. 1, 
Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $160,000 for the Potomac and Ohio 
River basins soil nutrient project. The project will test soils 
to provide farmers with nutrient management information to 
reduce production costs; aid in the protection of the 
Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication; and the Ohio River, 
Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from depletion of life-
sustaining oxygen.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to develop a geographic 
information system [GIS] based model in South Carolina to 
integrate commodity and conservation program data at the field 
level for watershed analysis purposes.
    The Committee notes the declining ground water resources in 
the lower Mississippi Valley and is aware of ongoing efforts of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Arkansas, and 
local conservation districts to correct this serious problem. 
The Committee expects the agency to increase its support above 
the fiscal year 1998 level for activities associated with 
Boeuf-Tensas, Bayou Meto, and other ground water-related 
projects in east Arkansas along with continuing the efforts 
with the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Committee expects 
the continuation of activities in Arkansas related to the Kuhn 
Bayou project, also known as Point Remove.
    The Committee is aware of the need to continue development 
of water treatment practices for cool and cold water 
aquaculture production in West Virginia.
    To comply with Clean Water Act requirements, all States 
eventually will have to establish total maximum daily load 
[TMDL] standards and formulate and implement plans to correct 
temperature, sediment, and containment problems in waterways. 
The Committee encourages NRCS to give high priority to States, 
such as Idaho, which are currently under a court imposed 
schedule.
    The Committee provides $350,000 for evaluating and 
increasing native plant materials in Alaska. The revegetation 
will be developed for commercial producers so that it can be 
used to protect and restore worn trails, eroded streambanks, 
and to prevent further ecological damage.
    The Committee also provides $500,000 for technical 
assistance for the Resurrection River North Forest Acres, 
Alaska.

                     watershed surveys and planning

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $11,190,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................      11,190,000

\1\ Funding is included 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 Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A 
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal 
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation, 
watershed surveys and planning.
    River basin activities provide for cooperation with other 
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and 
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a 
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of 
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide 
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream 
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a 
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and 
other phases of water development.
    Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation 
between the Federal Government and the States and their 
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. 
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of 
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and 
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and 
streams and to further the conservation, development, 
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department 
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations 
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations 
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local 
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water 
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works 
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also 
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and 
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate 
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for 
carrying out the plan.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $11,190,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 appropriation and $11,190,000 more than the 
budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $101,036,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................      49,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     101,036,000

\1\ Does not reflect $80,000,000 in emergency funding provided by Public 
Law 105-174.
\2\ Funding for technical assistance is included under conservation 
operations.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed and flood prevention operations, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $101,036,000. This 
amount is the same as the 1998 appropriation and $52,036,000 
more than the budget request.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 1998 level of 
funding for the following projects: the Little Sioux and 
Mosquito Creek projects in Iowa; the Little Auglaize watershed 
in Ohio; and supports the continuation of the Potomac 
headwaters project in West Virginia.
    The Committee is aware of outstanding watershed needs in 
the following Mississippi counties: Adams, Alcorn, Claiborne, 
Covington, DeSota, Forrest, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Itawamba, 
Jones, Leake, Lee, Lowndes, Madison, Monroe, Neshoba, Panola, 
Perry, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Rankin, Tippah, Union, Warren, 
Benton, Copiah, Hancock, Jackson, Lauderdale, Leflore, 
Marshall, Montgomery, Simpson, Tallahatchie, Tate, Stone, 
Webster, Lamar, Winston, and Yazoo.
    The Committee encourages the Department to complete work on 
the Deadman-Bullard project, Oregon.
    The Committee supports increasing water storage capacity 
and improving the efficiency of delivery systems on the Islands 
of Hawaii and Maui to mitigate persistent drought conditions 
and conserve water to support diversified agriculture 
activities. The Committee urges the NRCS to support projects to 
improve these storage and delivery systems.
    The Committee encourages the Department to assist local 
landowners with the following watershed projects: lower 
Winooski, Dead Creek, Barton, Clyde, and lower Otter Rivers in 
the Lake Champlain and Memphremagog watersheds in Vermont; 
Repaupo Creek watershed, Greenwich and Logan Townships, New 
Jersey; and the South Delta watershed, Mississippi.
    The Committee urges the agency to proceed with a 
comprehensive watershed plan for the Upper Tygart Valley 
watershed. The Committee also urges the agency to proceed with 
a pilot flood plain relocation project for the Tygart River 
basin initiative in West Virginia. The Committee is aware that 
traditional programs have not proven effective against 
continuous flooding in the basin.
    The Committee is aware of continued flooding in the Devils 
Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen 
in each of the past 6 years. The lake is now about 22 feet 
higher than it was in 1993. The Committee encourages the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, with the cooperation of 
the Farm Service Agency, to assist in the locally coordinated 
flood response and water management activities being developed 
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NRCS and FSA 
should continue to utilize conservation programs in providing 
water holding and storage areas on private land as necessary 
intermediate measures in watershed management.

                 resource conservation and development

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $34,377,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      34,377,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,377,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For resource conservation and development, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $34,377,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 level and the budget estimate.

                      forestry incentives program

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $6,325,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       6,325,000

    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. This program 
is carried out by providing technical assistance and long-term 
cost-sharing agreements with private landowners.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Forestry Incentives Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 appropriation and $6,325,000 more than the 
budget request.

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $588,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         611,000
Committee recommendation................................         588,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$588,000. This amount is $23,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the 1998 level.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider the 
designation of Alcorn State University's proposed Hiram Revels 
Institute for the study and improvement of rural life as a 
center of excellence. This center will seek to improve the 
health and economy of rural Americans through innovative 
telemedicine and techniques to increase job skills. The 
Committee also urges the agency to consider any application 
that would help in this mission.
    The definition of ``rural area'' for USDA rural development 
programs, as revised by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 [FAIR], has had the unintentional effect of 
making ineligible some areas of the country that had been 
previously eligible for certain rural business programs 
administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and the 
community facilities direct loan, loan guarantee, and grant 
programs administered by the Rural Housing Service. The 
Committee includes language in the bill to reinstate the 
statutory language and regulations in existence prior to 
enactment of the FAIR Act until this matter can be addressed on 
a permanent basis.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $652,197,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     715,172,000
Committee recommendation................................     700,201,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the 
Committee recommends $700,201,000. This amount is $14,971,000 
less than the budget request and $48,004,000 more than the 
fiscal year 1998 level.
    Community facility loans.--The Committee is aware of the 
unique problems facing the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 
serving 50 rural Alaskan villages and the environmental 
problems resulting from leaking fuel lines and tanks. The 
Committee directs the Department to work with this cooperative 
to finance the needed repairs and equipment through a 
combination of a community facilities direct loans at the 
poverty interest rate of 4.5 percent and community facilities 
grant funds so that environmental laws are not broken. Should 
the Department find that no assistance can be provided, the 
Committee requests that the Department report to the Committee 
no later than December 31, 1998.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to applications for community facility loans 
for the Bamburg Planning Commission, South Carolina, in order 
to stimulate economic growth; and for the early childhood 
center in Jefferson County, OR.
    Community facility grants.--The Committee recognizes that 
Libby, MT, is experiencing a weakened economy from a decline in 
the timber harvesting industry in Western States. The Committee 
encourages the Department to consider an application and to 
work closely in developing a plan for a community facility for 
arts and local activities. The Committee recognizes the need 
for a community facility grant for Rural Missions, Inc., Johns 
Island, SC, and encourages the Department to give this 
application the utmost consideration.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
consider an application for the Bologna Performing Arts Center 
for a summer arts program for kindergarten-12th grade students 
and teachers, Cleveland, MS.
    The Committee is aware of the need for a community facility 
grant for the construction of a new facility for the St. Paul 
Island Health Clinic in Alaska. The Committee encourages the 
Department to consider an application for the construction of 
this facility.
    Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] from 
the following: Northern New Mexico Apple Growers Cooperative in 
Velarde, NM; the Grants to Broadcasting Program; Self-Help, 
Durham, NC; Delta Research Telecommunications Resource Center, 
Missouri; Coastal Enterprises, Inc. [CEI], Wiscasset, ME; 
Yankee Forest Safety Network; Strategic Marketing for Rural 
Businesses and Communities, Iowa; Arkansas Enterprise Group, 
Arkansas; University of Maine's Darling Marine Research Center, 
Maine; Lancaster County, PA; Rosedale-Bolivar County Port 
Commission, Mississippi; Rural Economic Area Partnerships, 
North Dakota; Heritage Corridor, South Carolina; and the 
slaughterhouse in Teller, AK.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process. The Committee expects the 
Department to ensure that the system by which applications for 
rural business enterprise grants are considered does not 
discriminate against applications which may benefit multiple 
States.
    The Committee has provided the 1998 level of funding of 
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
    Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for the following projects: the Lake Marion 
Regional Water Agency and the Shulerville/Honey Hill Water 
project, South Carolina; the Choctaw Water Association and the 
Boyle-Skene Water Association, Mississippi; the Long Park Dam 
in Manila, UT; and Vallecito Water Co., Colorado.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up 
to $25,000,000 available for water systems for rural and native 
villages in Alaska, and $20,000,000 for water and waste 
disposal systems for the colonias along the United States-
Mexico border. In addition, the Committee makes up to 
$5,200,000 available for the circuit rider program.
    Venture capital.--The Committee directs the Department to 
provide for rural venture capital demonstration programs only 
in Kentucky and Vermont.
    The Committee recognizes the continuing problem of out-
migration in rural counties across the country and the efforts 
being made through the Rural Economic Area Partnership [REAP] 
Pilot Program. The Committee is aware of the Department's 
financial support of the REAP zones in North Dakota and urges 
the continuation of this support. In addition, the Committee 
urges that Rural Development, as the lead agency for this pilot 
program, use out-migration as one of the allocation criteria 
when determining assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of providing 
assistance to the economically distressed area of the Lower 
Mississippi Delta. The Committee does not recommend the 
transfer of RCAP funds to the Appalachian Regional Commission 
to establish a delta region economic development program, as 
proposed by the administration. This proposal is addressed 
specifically by the Committee under the Office of the 
Secretary.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide 
financial assistance for the Lower Mississippi Delta 
Development Center [LMDDC], a not-for-profit organization which 
advocates and helps implement the recommendations for the 
congressionally created Lower Mississippi Delta Development 
Commission.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1998 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM                                      
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--                            
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee   
                                                                  1998           1999 budget     recommendation 
                                                              appropriation        request                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:                                                                                                        
    Community facility loan subsidies:                                                                          
        Guaranteed........................................               613  ................  ................
        Direct............................................            17,273            27,480            20,610
    Community facility grants.............................             9,176             8,237             9,176
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, housing...................................            27,062            35,717            29,786
                                                           =====================================================
Business:                                                                                                       
  Business and industry loan subsidies:                                                                         
        Guaranteed........................................             9,700            10,200             9,700
        Direct............................................  ................  ................  ................
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            38,193            40,300            38,193
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            47,893            50,500            47,893
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:                                                                                                      
    Water and waste disposal loan subsidies:                                                                    
        Guaranteed........................................  ................  ................  ................
        Direct............................................            67,442           126,209           119,922
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           507,200           500,000           500,000
    Solid waste management grants.........................             2,600             2,746             2,600
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           577,242           628,955           622,522
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           652,197           715,172           700,201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Rural Housing Service

                       total appropriations level

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................  $1,254,002,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,288,246,500
Committee recommendation................................   1,284,481,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $846,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends total appropriations of 
$1,284,481,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is 
$3,765,500 less than the budget request and $30,479,000 more 
than the 1998 level.

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1998........................................($4,219,527,000)
Budget estimate, 1999................................... (4,347,116,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (4,284,398,000)

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, compared to the 1998 levels and 
the 1999 budget request:

                                   RURAL HOUSING SERVICE LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS                                  
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                     1998         1999 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:                                                       
    Low-income family housing (sec. 502):                                                                       
        Direct...............................................      (1,000,000)      (1,000,000)      (1,000,000)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed..............................      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................         (30,000)         (25,001)         (30,000)
    Farm labor (sec. 514)....................................         (15,000)         (32,108)         (15,758)
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................    \2\ (128,640)        (100,000)        (128,640)
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................         (19,700)        (150,000)         (75,000)
    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, RHS...........................................      (4,219,527)      (4,347,116)      (4,284,398)
                                                              ==================================================
Grants and payments:                                                                                            
    Mutual and self-help housing.............................          26,000           26,000           26,000 
    Rental assistance........................................         541,397          583,397          583,397 
    Rural community fire protection grants...................           2,000           ( \1\ )          ( \1\ )
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................          45,720           46,900           45,720 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, rural housing grants and pay-  ments..........         615,117          656,297          655,117 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, RHS loans and grants..........................      (4,834,644)      (5,003,413)      (4,939,515)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1999 under the U.S. Forest Service.                                                   
\2\ USDA changed terms of loan from 50 years to 30 years which allows the agency to make $150,000,000 in loans. 

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Administrative  
                                                          Direct loan       Guaranteed loan        expenses,    
                                                            subsidy             subsidy       including transfer
                                                                                                   from RHIF    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998................................        $218,042,000          $8,100,000      ($412,743,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...............................         196,934,500           6,180,000       (428,835,000)
Committee recommendation............................         203,161,000           4,440,000       (421,763,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 1998 levels and the 
1999 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal year--                         
                                                               ----------------------------------    Committee  
                                                                   1998 level      1999 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Single family (sec. 502):                                                                                   
        Direct................................................         128,100          118,200          118,200
        Unsubsidized guaranteed...............................           6,900            2,700            2,700
    Housing repair (sec. 504).................................          10,300            8,808           10,569
    Farm labor (sec. 514).....................................           7,388           16,706            8,199
    Rental housing (sec. 515).................................          68,745           48,250           62,069
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538).................           1,200            3,480            1,740
    Site loans................................................  ...............              16               16
    Credit sales of acquired property.........................           3,492            4,672            3,826
    Self-help housing land development fund...................              17              282              282
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies...................................         226,142          203,114          207,601
                                                               =================================================
Administrative expenses.......................................          57,958           60,978           60,978
(Transfer from RHIF)..........................................        (354,785)        (367,857)       (360,785)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHS expenses.....................................        (412,743)        (428,835)       (421,763)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $541,397,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     583,397,000
Committee recommendation................................     583,397,000

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
established a rural rental assistance program to be 
administered through the rural housing loans program. The 
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income 
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental 
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, 
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly 
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare 
agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by 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 recommendations

    For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $583,397,000. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $42,000,000 more than the 1998 
level.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,000,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This is the same as the 1998 and the 
budget request levels.

                 RURAL COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION GRANTS

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................         ( \1\ )

\1\ Transferred to the U.S. Forest Service.

    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 Recommendations

    The Committee recommends no funding for this program. This 
program is transferred to the U.S. Forest Service, as proposed 
in the budget.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $45,720,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      46,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,720,000

    This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant 
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    Rural housing for domestic farm labor.--Financial 
assistance in the form of grants is authorized to public or 
private nonprofit organizations or other eligible organizations 
for low-rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm 
labor.
    Under section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural 
Housing Service is authorized to share with States or other 
political subdivisions, public or private nonprofit 
organizations, or nonprofit organizations of farm workers, the 
cost of providing low-rent housing, basic household 
furnishings, and related facilities to be used by domestic farm 
laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or seasonal 
occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or 
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and 
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials. Grant 
assistance may not exceed 90 percent of the total development 
cost. Applicants furnish as much of the development cost as 
they can afford by using their own resources, by borrowing 
either directly from private sources, or by obtaining an 
insured loan under section 514 of the Housing Act. The 
applicant must agree to charge rentals which do not exceed 
amounts approved by the Secretary, maintain the housing at all 
times in a safe and sanitary condition, and give occupancy 
preference to domestic farm laborers.
    The obligations incurred by the applicant as a condition of 
the grant continue for 50 years from the date of the grant 
unless sooner terminated by the Rural Housing Service. Grant 
obligations are secured by a mortgage of the housing or other 
security. In the event of default, the Rural Housing Service 
has the option to require repayment of the grant.
    Very low-income housing repair grants.--The Very Low-Income 
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair 
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in 
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove 
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the 
community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $5,000, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and technical assistance grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, 524, 
and 533. The assistance is directed to very low-income families 
in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the 
population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent 
or more of the population resides in substandard housing. In 
fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented 
under this authority. This program provides low-income 
individuals and families education and counseling on obtaining 
and/or maintaining occupancy of adequate housing and supervised 
credit assistance to become successful homeowners.
    Compensation for construction defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural housing preservation grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service 
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and 
very low-income people.
    The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the 
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the 
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible 
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants 
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be 
administered by local grantees.

                       Committee Recommendations

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the 
Committee recommends $45,720,000. This is $1,180,000 less than 
the budget request and the same as the 1998 level.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the 1998 levels and the budget 
request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS                                        
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--                        
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee  
                                                                    1998 level     1999 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic farm labor grants......................................          10,000          13,000          10,000
Very low-income housing repair grants...........................          24,900          24,900          24,900
Rural housing preservation grants...............................          10,820           9,000          10,820
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          45,720          46,900          45,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total, RHS  
                                                                Appropriation    Transfer from     salaries and 
                                                                                 loan accounts       expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998.........................................  \1\ $57,958,000   ($354,785,000)   ($412,743,000)
Budget estimate, 1999........................................       60,978,000    (367,857,000)    (428,835,000)
Committee recommendation.....................................       60,978,000    (360,785,000)    (421,763,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $846,000 (Public Law 105-174).                                               

    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 accounts for the 
rural housing insurance fund and rural community facility 
loans. Appropriations to the ``Salaries and expenses'' account 
will be for costs associated with grant programs.

                       Committee Recommendations

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Housing Service, 
including transfers from other accounts, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $421,763,000. This is $7,072,000 
less than the budget request and $9,020,000 more than the 
fiscal year 1998 level.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $55,028,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      57,048,000
Committee recommendation................................      54,578,000

    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.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The following table presents the Committee's recommended 
levels for loans and grants administered by the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service, as compared to the 1998 levels and the 
budget request:

           RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE GRANTS AND LOANS          
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
                               1998 level   1999 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural development loan fund.      (35,000)      (35,000)       (33,000) 
Rural economic development                                              
 loans......................      (25,000)      (15,000)       (23,000) 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, RBS loans......      (60,000)      (50,000)       (56,000) 
                             ===========================================
Rural cooperative                                                       
 development grants.........        3,000         5,700          3,000  
                             ===========================================
      Total, RBS loans and                                              
       grants...............      (63,000)      (55,700)       (59,000) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1998........................................   ($35,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................    (35,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (33,000,000)

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee recommends a total level of $33,000,000. This is 
$2,000,000 less than the budget request and the 1998 level.
    The following table presents the Committee's 
recommendations for direct loan subsidy and administrative 
expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 1998 and budget 
request levels:

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                          Direct loan        expenses   
                                            subsidy        transfer to  
                                                               RBCS     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998..................     $16,888,000      ($3,482,000)
Budget estimate, 1999.................      17,622,000       (3,547,000)
Committee recommendation..............      16,615,000       (3,482,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--                              
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee    
                                                             1998 level        1999 request      recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................      ($25,000,000)      ($15,000,000)       (23,000,000)
Direct loan subsidy....................................         5,978,000      \1\ 3,783,000          5,801,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Up to $3,783,000 to be derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as authorized by
  section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.                                                         

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy 
appropriation for rural economic development loans of 
$5,801,000. This amount is $177,000 less than the 1998 level 
and $2,018,000 more than the budget request. The budget request 
proposes $3,783,000 to be derived by transfer from interest on 
the cushion of credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-Federal sources. Grants are competitive and 
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for rural cooperative 
development grants. This is the same amount as the 1998 level 
and $2,700,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
consider the following applications for cooperative development 
grants: Natural Agricultural Products Cooperative, Vermont; 
cultural and heritage tourism in Alaska; and the America's 
Agricultural Heritage Partnership, Iowa.
    Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development 
grants, $1,300,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for 
the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program; 
and $250,000 is for a cooperative agreement for an agribusiness 
and cooperative development program at Mississippi State 
University. Further, the Committee strongly encourages the 
Department to make available $300,000 for a project on 
agricultural diversification to be conducted by the Jefferson 
Institute, Missouri, and consider an application for the 
Pennsylvania Cooperative Development Center.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total, RBS, 
                                                                   Appropriation   Transfer from   salaries and 
                                                                                   loan accounts     expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................     $25,680,000    ($3,482,000)   ($29,162,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................      26,396,000     (3,547,000)    (29,943,000)
Committee recommendation........................................      25,680,000     (3,482,000)    (29,162,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 recommendations

    The Committee recommends $29,162,000 for salaries and 
expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. This is the 
same as the 1998 level and $781,000 less than the budget 
request.
    The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations 
of the cooperative services office in Hilo, HI, to address the 
increasing demand for cooperatives by the rapidly expanding 
diversified agriculture sector in Hawaii.

  ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION 
                             REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,000,000

    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 assists in 
researching, developing, commercializing, and marketing new 
nonfood, nonfeed uses for traditional and new agriculture 
commodities.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 to 
the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Corporation Revolving Fund. This is the same as the fiscal year 
1998 level and $3,000,000 less than 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

Loan level, 1998........................................($1,420,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999................................... (1,075,000,000)
Committee allowance..................................... (1,511,500,000)

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

                       committee recommendations

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommended 
loan levels for the ``Rural electrification and 
telecommunications loans program'' account, as compared to the 
fiscal year 1998 and budget request levels:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                              --------------------------    Committee   
                                                1999      recommendation
                                1998 level    request                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:                                                    
    Direct loans:                                                       
        Electric 5 percent...    (125,000)     (55,000)         (71,500)
        Telecommunications 5                                            
         percent.............     (75,000)     (50,000)         (75,000)
                              ------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........    (200,000)    (105,000)        (146,500)
                              ==========================================
Treasury rate:                                                          
 Telecommunications..........    (300,000)    (300,000)        (250,000)
Muni-rate: Electric..........    (500,000)    (250,000)        (295,000)
FFB loans:                                                              
    Electric, regular........    (300,000)    (300,000)        (700,000)
    Telecommunications.......    (120,000)    (120,000)        (120,000)
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............    (420,000)    (420,000)        (820,000)
                              ==========================================
      Total, loan                                                       
       authorizations........  (1,420,000)  (1,075,000)      (1,511,500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends budget authority to support an 
estimated $1,066,500,000 program level for electric loans, 
$141,500,000 more than fiscal year 1998. In order to maintain 
this level, the Committee has increased the amount for FFB 
lending activities since changes in subsidy rates have limited 
resources for 5 percent and municipal rate loans.
    The Committee recognizes the special needs of some 
borrowers who are unable to secure financing from the private 
sector and supports the recommendations of the Department to 
prioritize limited resource applications following resolution 
of all other applications on hand. Further, the Committee notes 
that any greater reliance on private sector financing must be 
accompanied by reasonable lien accommodations and is encouraged 
by the Department's recent action to avoid 
overcollateralization of borrower assets. In order to best meet 
the needs of all borrowers, the Committee provides program 
levels adequate to accommodate borrowers most in need and 
expects the Department to continue its efforts to provide 
opportunities for private sector financing.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    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.

                       committee recommendations

    The following table presents the Committee's recommendation 
for the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared 
to the 1998 level and the budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                  1998 level      1999 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Direct loans:                                                                                               
        Electric 5 percent...................................           9,325            7,172            9,325 
        Telecommunications 5 percent.........................           2,940            4,895            7,342 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          12,265           12,067           16,667 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Treasury rate: Telecommunications............................              60              810              675 
Muni-rate: Electric..........................................          21,100           21,900           25,842 
FFB loans: Regular electric..................................           2,760   ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................          36,185           34,777           43,184 
                                                              ==================================================
RETLP administrative expenses................................          29,982           32,000           29,982 
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, ``Rural electrification and telecommunications                                                     
       loans program'' account...............................          66,167           66,777           73,166 
(Loan authorization).........................................      (1,420,000)      (1,075,000)      (1,511,500)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1998........................................  ($175,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   (175,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (140,000,000)

    The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A 
stock issued to the Untied 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.
    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 recommendations

    The following table presents the Committee's 
recommendations for the direct loan subsidy and administrative 
expenses, as compared to the 1998 level and the budget request:

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct loan   Administrative
                                              subsidy        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998....................      $3,710,000      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............       4,637,500       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................       3,710,000       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the ``Rural  
  Telephone Bank liquidating'' account.                                 

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND telemedicine program

                            loans and grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                  1998 level      1999 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorization...........................................   ($150,000,000)   ($150,000,000)   ($150,000,000)
Direct loan subsidy..........................................          30,000          180,000          180,000 
Grants.......................................................      12,500,000       15,000,000       12,500,000 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total................................................      12,530,000       15,180,000       12,680,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Recommendations

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee recommends $12,680,000. This is $150,000 more than 
the 1998 level and $2,500,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to the following applications: the National 
Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health 
Research Center multistate digital/distance learning project; 
the distance learning network for schools in Orleans County, 
VT; the continuing education model distance learning program 
made up of a consortium of Kansas State University and 
community colleges in Colby, Dodge City, Garden City, and 
Liberal, KS; Indiana State University's degree link initiative; 
a distance learning project for an alliance of the five 
colleges of technology included in the State University of New 
York system; and the Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, 
a multiagency statewide telemedicine initiative to provide 
health care services to remote communities on a cost-effective 
basis by saving unnecessary air transportation costs to urban 
and regional health care providers.
    The Committee is aware of the potential for the distance 
learning and telemedicine link program of the Maui Community 
College, the community hospital system, and the nutrition 
education activities of the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The Committee 
encourages the Department to fund a demonstration project to 
build upon existing resources and to further the use of 
advanced telecommunications by rural communities.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total, RUS,  
                                                              Appropriation     Transfer from     salaries and  
                                                                                loan accounts       expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................       $33,000,000     ($32,982,000)     ($65,982,000)
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................        33,445,000      (35,000,000)      (68,445,000)
Committee recommendation..................................        33,000,000      (32,982,000)      (65,982,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends $65,982,000 for salaries and 
expenses of the Rural Utilities Service. This is the same as 
the 1998 level and $2,463,000 less than the budget request.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $554,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         573,000
Committee recommendation................................         554,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $554,000. This amount is the same as the 1998 
level and $19,000 less than the budget request.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Food assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally 
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and 
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children. 
These programs include:
    Child nutrition programs.--The national school lunch and 
school breakfast, summer food service, and child and adult care 
food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches 
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school 
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the special milk program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children. 
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and 
transfer from section 32.
    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. Assistance 
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a 
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of food stamps. The 
program also includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 
authorizes 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 also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that 
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase 
commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Funds 
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income by providing 
supplemental foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be 
done through health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food 
stores, or other approved methods which a cooperating State 
health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided 
by direct appropriation.
    WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program.--This program 
provides (WIC and 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.
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] and 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by 
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance 
Act.
    Food donations programs for selected groups.--Nutritious 
agricultural commodities are 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. 
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    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.--All salaries and Federal 
operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 
from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition 
Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and 
revisions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the 
focal point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion 
and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As 
of September 30, 1997, there were 1,612 full-time permanent and 
82 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. FNS's 
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria VA, totals 
585, and 1,109 FNS employees are located in the field. There 
are 7 regional offices employing 816 employees, and the balance 
of the agency is located in 6 food stamp compliance offices, 1 
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative 
review office, and 70 field offices. Funds for this program are 
provided by direct appropriation.

                        child nutrition programs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 32                     
                                                              Appropriation       transfers           Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................    $2,616,425,000  ($5,151,391,000)  ($7,767,816,000)
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................     3,897,703,000   (5,332,194,000)   (9,229,897,000)
Committee recommendation..................................     4,171,747,000   (5,048,150,000)   (9,219,897,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The child nutrition programs, authorized by the National 
School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, provide 
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or 
at a low cost depending on their family income level. FNS 
provides cash subsidies to States administering the programs 
and directly administers the program in the States which choose 
not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional training and 
surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under current 
law, most of these payments are made on the basis of 
reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches 
and breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement 
rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer 
Price Index for food away from home.
    The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, contains a number of child nutrition 
provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes and 
expands SFSP to private, nonprofit organizations under certain 
conditions.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Provides 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) Mandates a 
unified system for compliance and accountability to integrate 
Federal and State efforts and provide for increased Federal 
monitoring of SFSP operations; and (2) authorizes the Food 
Service Management Institute to improve school food service 
operations.
    Nutrition education and training [NET].--Requires 
demonstration projects and studies to examine a number of 
program issues. This information aids in making informed 
decisions and improving program operations. Public Law 95-166 
institutes a program of grants to the States for nutrition 
education in schools.
    A description of child nutrition programs follows:
    1. Cash payments to States.--The programs are operated 
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the 
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to 
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and 
other institutions. Sponsors make application to the State 
agencies, and if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis 
in accordance with the terms of their agreements and rates 
prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted 
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for 
food away from home.
          (a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to 
        the States for the service of lunches to all school 
        children, regardless of family income. States must 
        match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year 
        1999, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.5 billion school lunches 
        including 1.9 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.6 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 27.2 million children 
        are expected to participate in the program daily during 
        the school year.
          (b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price 
        lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the 
        States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price 
        to needy children. In fiscal year 1999, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.5 
        billion lunches, of which 2.3 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.3 billion at reduced price. Over 
        16 million needy children will participate in the 
        program on an average schoolday during the year.
          (c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement 
        to the States is based on the number of breakfasts 
        served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate 
        for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools 
        are designated in severe need because, in the second 
        preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of 
        their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the 
        regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to 
        cover cost, receive higher rates of reimbursement in 
        both the free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal 
        year 1999, the program will serve an estimated 1.3 
        billion breakfasts to a daily average of 7.8 million 
        children.
          (d) State administrative expenses.--The funds may be 
        used for State employee salaries, benefits, support 
        services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made 
        the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 
        percent of certain Federal payments in the second 
        previous year. In fiscal year 1999, $118,074,000 will 
        be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State 
        administrative expenses and to improve the management 
        of various nutrition programs.
          (e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free 
        to children in low-income neighborhoods during the 
        summer months are supported on a performance basis by 
        Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are 
        also provided for related State and local 
        administrative expenses. During the summer of 1999, 
        approximately 149.3 million meals will be served.
          (f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool 
        children receive year-round food assistance in 
        nonprofit child care centers and family and group day 
        care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits 
        profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation 
        under title XX of the Social Security Act to 
        participate in the program if 25 percent of the 
        children served are title XX participants. Certain 
        adult day care centers are also eligible for 
        participation in this program, providing subsidized 
        meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older. 
        The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State 
        agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, 
        suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related 
        State audit expenses. In fiscal year 1999, 
        approximately 1.6 billion meals will be served.
    2. Commodity procurement.--Commodities are purchased for 
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer 
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for 
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers 
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to 
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in 
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these 
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 
funds.
    3. Nutrition studies and education.--
          (a) Nutrition education and training [NET].--This 
        program provides funds to State agencies for the 
        development of comprehensive nutrition education and 
        information programs for children participating in or 
        eligible for school lunch and related child nutrition 
        programs.
          (b) National Food Service Management Institute 
        [NFSMI].--The National Food Service Management 
        Institute provides instruction for educators and school 
        food service personnel in nutrition and food service 
        management.
    4. Special milk.--In fiscal year 1999, approximately 144 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 135 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 1999, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 15.9 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 12.4 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $4,171,747,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $5,048,150,000, for a total program of $9,219,897,000. 
This amount is $1,452,081,000 more than the 1998 program level 
and $10,000,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY                                          
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee  
                    Child nutrition programs                       1998 estimate    1999 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................   \1\ 4,174,990       5,384,452       5,384,452
School Breakfast Program........................................       1,306,550       1,396,955       1,396,955
State administrative expenses...................................         109,024         118,074         118,074
Summer Food Service Program.....................................         272,272         294,414         294,414
Child and Adult Care Food Program...............................       1,519,812       1,611,520       1,611,520
Special Milk Program............................................          18,155          18,055          18,055
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support.........         347,911         377,127         377,127
Nutrition studies and surveys...................................  ..............           3,000           3,000
Coordinated review system.......................................           4,124           4,300           4,300
School meals initiative.........................................           8,000          10,000          10,000
Food safety education...........................................  ..............           2,000           2,000
Nutrition education and training................................           3,750          10,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes transfer of $315,000,000 from the Food Stamp Program.                                              

    The total includes $10,000,000 for the school meals 
initiative. Included in this amount is a minimum of $4,100,000 
for food service training and technical assistance, of which 
$3,200,000 is for technical assistance materials, $400,000 is 
for print and electronic food service resource systems, and 
$500,000 is for cooperative agreements with the National Food 
Service Management Institute for food service; and $4,000,000 
for food service training grants to States. The Committee also 
expects FNS to utilize the Food Service Management Institute to 
carry out the food safety education program.

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 [wic]

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................  $3,924,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................   4,081,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,924,000,000

\1\ Includes up to $12,000,000 for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition 
Program.
\2\ Includes a proposed contingency reserve of $20,000,000, and does not 
include funding for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program which the 
budget proposes to fund under the ``Commodity Assistance Program'' 
account.

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.5 
million participants at an average food cost of $32.92 per 
person per month in fiscal year 1999.
    The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable 
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut 
butter.
    There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC 
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain 
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery 
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home; 
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick 
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge 
to all participants.
    The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, reauthorized and added several provisions 
to the program. For example, the act requires 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. In addition, the act permits 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.
    Public Law 101-147 changed the administrative formula for 
State program administrative costs from 20 percent of total 
available funds to a national monthly per person administrative 
grant. In addition, Public Law 101-147 makes one-half of 1 
percent of program funds, not to exceed $3,495,000, for 
evaluation of program performance. These evaluations are to be 
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
    The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also 
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC (or 
WIC-eligible) participants by providing them with coupons to 
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and 
vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to increase the 
awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income households. 
Although directly related to the WIC Program, about one-half of 
the current FMNP operations are administered by State 
departments of agriculture rather than the State WIC agencies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $3,924,000,000. This amount is the same as the 
1998 appropriation and $157,000,000 less than the budget 
request. The Committee does not provide the $20,000,000 
included in the budget request to create a program contingency 
reserve.
    The WIC Program continues to be a high priority of this 
Committee. The appropriation recommended by the Committee, 
together with anticipated carryover funds, will provide 
sufficient funding to maintain current WIC participation levels 
in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee makes available up to $15,000,000, $3,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 1998 level, to carry out the WIC 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. This is the same as the 
budget request level.
    The Committee has not included in the bill language carried 
for the past 2 years regarding competitive bidding systems used 
by State agencies to procure infant formula, or to give the 
Secretary of Agriculture discretionary authority over the 
allocation of WIC funds, as requested in the budget. These 
matters are expected to be addressed on a permanent basis in 
the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition and WIC Programs.
    The Committee expects the Department, in its review of 
State plans of operation and administration, to ensure that 
cost containment activities do not erode the nutrition benefits 
of the WIC Program. If this appears to be a potential problem, 
the Committee encourages the Department to undertake a study on 
this issue. The Department is to apprise the Committee by 
January 31, 1999, if such study is necessary.

                           food stamp program

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Amount in                      TEFAP commodity                  
                                                                       Expenses          reserve        Puerto Rico       purchases           Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998.............................................   $23,736,479,000     $100,000,000   $1,204,000,000     $100,000,000   $25,140,479,000
Budget estimate, 1999............................................    22,365,806,000    1,000,000,000    1,236,000,000      100,000,000    24,701,806,000
Committee recommendation.........................................    22,365,806,000      100,000,000    1,236,000,000       80,000,000    23,781,806,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. The Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
193, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 
2002.
    The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Participating households receive food stamps, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the stamps is paid by the Federal Government and is called the 
benefit cost. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition 
Service periodically revises household stamp allotments to 
reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan. The last 
revision was made on October 1, 1995.
    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. 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 the Federal Reserve Bank for 
redemption out of a special account maintained by the U.S. 
Treasury Department. The major alternative to the paper food 
stamp system is electronic benefit transfer [EBT]. 
    By the end of fiscal year 1997, 25 States had operating EBT 
systems. They are Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, 
Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 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.
    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 to establish a food 
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households. However, the commonwealth must 
submit its annual plan of operation to the Secretary for 
approval. The FAIR Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127, enacted 
November 5, 1990, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal 
year 2002. In addition to the provision of direct benefits to 
the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to fund up to 50 
percent of the cost of administering the program. The grant may 
also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture and food 
distribution in Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that 
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase 
commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Administrative costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis. Under the Hunger Prevention Act of 
1988, a State agency is held liable if its error rate of 
overissuances exceeds the lowest achieved national error rate 
average plus 1 percent. Liabilities are based on the level of 
State issuance and the extent to which the State's error rate 
exceeds a tolerance level. 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.
    State administration also includes State antifraud 
activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief 
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations 
and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, 
training, or experience that will increase their ability to 
obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department 
of Agriculture implemented a new grant program to States to 
assist them in providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends 
$23,781,806,000. This is $1,358,673,000 less than the 1998 
level and $920,000,000 less than the budget request. Of the 
amount provided, $100,000,000 is made available as a 
contingency reserve, $900,000,000 less than the contingency 
reserve level proposed in the budget and the same as the 1998 
level. The Committee recommendation also includes $5,700,000 
for studies and evaluations, as proposed in the budget.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $141,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............................     317,081,000
Committee recommendation................................     141,000,000

\1\ Includes funding for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and 
Pacific Island assistance funded under the ``Food donations programs for 
selected groups'' account, and the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program 
funded under the ``Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC]'' account. Also includes $20,000,000 for a 
proposed new Food Gleaning and Recovery Program.

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the 
President proposes to consolidate the Nutrition Program for the 
Elderly, Pacific Island assistance, and the WIC Farmers Market 
Nutrition Program into the program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program 
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6, 
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have 
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    In fiscal year 1999 approximately 134,700 women, infants, 
and young children and 263,220 elderly are authorized to 
receive food packages each month. The foods are provided by the 
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State 
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant 
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The 1996 FAIR Act, Public Law 104-127, reauthorizes the 
program through fiscal year 2002.
    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 Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Title II of 
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and 
appropriated funds for the costs of intrastate storage and 
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. In fiscal year 1998, 
$45,000,000 was provided for the purchase and distribution of 
commodities authorized by section 104 of the Hunger Prevention 
Act of 1988. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), 
the Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was absorbed into TEFAP by 
amending section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act. 
While commodities will not be purchased specifically for soup 
kitchens and food banks, they will be eligible to receive 
commodities through TEFAP.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    In fiscal year 1997, 29,500,000 dollars' worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Donations will continue in fiscal year 1998. Precise levels 
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and 
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 1999, 
$45,000,000 will be used to help State and local authorities 
with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus 
commodities to needy individuals. Although the $45,000,000 was 
allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds, 
each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase 
of additional commodities.
    The 1996 FAIR Act reauthorizes administrative funding 
through fiscal year 2002 and allows these funds to be used for 
local repackaging and further processing of commodities high in 
nutrient content. The law requires CCC bonus commodities to be 
distributed through TEFAP, and reauthorizes funding for the 
purchase of TEFAP commodities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $141,000,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 appropriation and $176,081,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The Committee understands that available carryover balances 
of fiscal year 1998 funds provided for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program may be $10,000,000 higher than 
anticipated in the budget and expects these additional funds to 
be applied to other program needs funded under this account. 
The Committee continues to encourage the Department to 
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among 
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities 
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity 
allocations through each of the three programs funded under 
this account.
    Due to spending limitations, the Committee does not provide 
the $20,000,000 proposed in the budget to initiate a Food 
Gleaning and Recovery Program.

              FOOD DONATIONS programs FOR SELECTED GROUPS

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $141,165,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................     141,081,000

\1\ Proposed to be funded under the ``Commodity Assistance Program'' 
account.

    Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--Commodity support for 
the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is authorized by titles 
III and VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods 
provided are used in preparing meals which are served in senior 
citizen centers and similar settings or delivered to the 
homebound elderly. These meals are the focal point of the 
nutrition projects for the elderly which have the dual 
objective of promoting better health and reducing the isolation 
of old age.
    Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are 
distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites at a 
specific rate per meal set by law. The estimated rate for 1998 
is 56.07 cents per meal. Some States elect to take all of their 
subsidy in cash and some States choose to receive a combination 
of cash and commodities. The commodities made available to the 
Nutrition Program for the Elderly are generally the same as 
those provided to schools under the child nutrition programs.
    Pacific Island assistance.--This program provides funding 
for a food distribution program for low-income individuals in 
the Pacific Island territories. Nutritious agricultural 
commodities are provided to low-income households in an attempt 
to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among eligible 
participants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the food donations programs for selected groups, the 
Committee recommends $141,081,000. This amount is $84,000 less 
than the 1998 appropriation and the same as the levels 
requested in the budget for these programs under the Commodity 
Assistance Program. Of the amount recommended by the Committee, 
$1,081,000 is for food distribution payments to the Pacific 
Islands and $140,000,000 is for the elderly feeding program.

                      food program administration

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $107,505,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     111,848,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,069,000

\1\ Reflects enacted rescission of $114,000 (Public Law 105-174).

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $109,069,000. This amount is $2,779,000 
less than the budget request and $1,564,000 more than the 1998 
level. The Committee's recommendation restores to the base 
$114,000 rescinded for fiscal year 1998 and includes the 
$1,450,000 requested in the budget for program and financial 
integrity advancement. The need to strengthen review and 
oversight of food and nutrition programs and of the State 
agencies carrying out these programs is clear given the recent 
findings of the General Accounting Office and USDA's Office of 
the Inspector General.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Transfers from                   
                                                             Appropriations     loan accounts         Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................      $131,295,000      ($4,266,000)    ($135,561,000)
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................       141,087,000       (4,506,000)     (145,593,000)
Committee recommendation..................................       131,795,000       (4,266,000)     (136,061,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence 
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with 
information on world agricultural production and trade that 
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a 
continuous program of reporting by 62 posts located throughout 
the world covering some 128 countries.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural 
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and 
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current 
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific 
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about 
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to 
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate 
these estimates.
    In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques 
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of 
events which may affect the condition and expected production 
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States. 
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided 
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and 
related data.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 71 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with 
market development cooperators, trade associations, State 
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales 
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS 
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural 
products, provides information about foreign importers, and 
performs a wide range of market development activities.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, 
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association 
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture 
export expansion. Through 1997, nonprofit private trade and 
producer associations have generated an estimated 
$1,244,000,000 in contributions to more than match the 
$737,000,000 contributed by FAS to finance overseas market 
promotion activities under the Cooperator Program. In addition, 
GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the 
recent progress of American agriculture in the world 
marketplace.
    The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to 
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17 
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to 
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing 
officials in trade promotion.
    The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the 
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with 
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance 
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies 
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to 
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports 
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate 
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S. 
agricultural exports to third markets.
    FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of 
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote 
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing 
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural 
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all 
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies 
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of 
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in 
its work with foreign countries, international organizations, 
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S. 
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $131,795,000. This is $500,000 
more than the 1998 appropriation and $9,292,000 less than the 
budget request. The Committee's recommendation does not include 
the $4,404,000 provided for fiscal year 1998 by the Department 
of State in support of the International Cooperative 
Administrative Support Service [ICASS] Program. The Committee 
expects that ICASS Program costs will continue to be funded by 
the Department of State for fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Cochran 
Fellowship Program and continues funding at the fiscal year 
1998 level for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator 
Program. The Committee expects the FAS to draw on available 
carryover balances, to the extent feasible, to supplement this 
funding to maintain support for marketing plan activities under 
the program. The Committee does not appropriate funds to the 
FAS for the annual operating costs of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] computer facility, as proposed in the budget. 
The Committee expects the CCC to continue to reimburse FAS for 
these costs.
    The Committee includes language in the bill to allow the 
FAS to establish an account of up to $2,000,000 to manage 
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates. Exchange 
rate losses are to be offset from this account and exchange 
rate gains are to be deposited in the account.
    The Committee continues to strongly urge the Secretary to 
utilize the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP] to the full 
extent allowed under GATT, and renews its request that the 
Department submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the 
progress it is making toward meeting this goal for fiscal year 
1999.
    The Committee supports continuation of the agricultural 
information exchange program with Ireland as authorized by 
section 1420 of the Food Security Act of 1985.

                             public law 480

                 public law 480 title i program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative 
                                                              Credit level      Loan subsidy        expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................    ($226,900,000)      $176,596,000        $1,850,000
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................     (102,163,000)        88,667,000         1,938,000
Committee recommendation..................................     (203,475,000)       176,596,000         1,850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       committee recommendations

    For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends a 
program level of $221,083,000. This amount is $23,425,000 less 
than the 1998 level and $109,525,000 more than the budget 
request. The corresponding loan levels, subsidies, and 
administrative expenses are reflected in the table above.

  public law 480 grants account (title i ocean freight differential, 
                        title ii and title iii)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $884,608,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     876,395,000
Committee recommendation................................     884,608,000

    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table shows the Committee's recommendations 
for the Public Law 480 grant account:

                                          PUBLIC LAW 480 GRANT ACCOUNT                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee  
                                                                   1998 enacted     1999 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I ocean freight differential..............................     $17,608,000      $9,395,000     $17,608,000
Title II commodities supplied in connection with dispositions                                                   
 abroad.........................................................     837,000,000     837,000,000     837,000,000
Title III commodities supplied in connection with dispositions                                                  
 abroad.........................................................      30,000,000      30,000,000      30,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     884,608,000     876,395,000     884,608,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Law 480, title II.--The Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 [FAIR Act], Public Law 104-
127, requires that a minimum of 2.025 million metric tons of 
commodities be provided each fiscal year under title II 
authority, of which 1.55 million metric tons--three-fourths of 
the total minimum tonnage--is designated for development 
programs that address chronic hunger and its root causes in 
areas with inadequate food security.
    The Committee expects USAID's administration of Public Law 
480 title II to encourage private voluntary organizations 
[PVO's], cooperatives, and the World Food Program [WFP] to 
generate a sufficient volume of proposals to allocate roughly 
three-fourths of the total title II tonnage funded for fiscal 
year 1999 for these PVO's, cooperatives, and the WFP for 
developmental food security programs.
    The Committee recognizes the authority of USAID to waive 
this minimum when this volume of commodities cannot be used 
effectively and for certain emergencies, but believes this 
waiver should be used rarely, and only when emergency needs can 
be weighed against concrete proposals for a fully funded 
longer-term development program.
    Further, the Committee supports the use of title II funds 
in fiscal year 1999 to continue the fiscal year 1998 level for 
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.

       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

             (export credit programs, gsm-102 and gsm-103)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Guaranteed loan   Guaranteed loan   Administrative 
                                                                 levels            subsidy          expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................  ($5,500,000,000)      $407,631,000        $3,820,000
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................  \1\ (4,615,000,0                                    
                                                                         00)   \1\ 252,500,000         4,085,000
Committee recommendation..................................  \1\ (4,615,000,0                                    
                                                                         00)   \1\ 252,500,000         3,820,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 estimate. No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent       
  authority.                                                                                                    

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

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The mission of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is to 
ensure that: (1) food is safe, pure, and wholesome; (2) 
cosmetics are unadulterated; (3) human and animal drugs, 
biological products, and therapeutic devices are safe and 
effective; and (4) radiological products and use procedures do 
not result in unnecessary exposure to radiation.
    Under the foods program, FDA sets food standards; evaluates 
food additives and packaging for potential health hazards; 
conducts research to reduce food-borne disease, to determine 
specific health impacts of hazardous substances in food and to 
develop methods for detecting them in foods; maintains 
surveillance over foods through plant inspections, laboratory 
analyses, and legal action where necessary; and ensures fair 
and informative labeling and nutrient information.
    The drugs program includes the premarket review of human 
and animal drugs and biological products in order to ensure 
their safety and efficacy; research to improve the agency's 
base of scientific knowledge; and the postmarketing monitoring 
of drug experience. FDA conducts manufacturer inspections and 
sample examinations to ensure industry compliance. Included 
under this program activity is the similar regulation of animal 
devices and feeds, as well as a program to assure the safety of 
animal-derived human foods.
    The devices and radiological products program conducts 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of medical devices 
to assure their safety and efficacy, and sets standards for the 
manufacture and use of radiological products to protect the 
public from unnecessary exposure to radiation. FDA monitors 
experience with medical devices, and conducts inspections of 
manufacturing plants and tests of radiological products to 
ensure compliance with regulations and standards; conducts 
research to improve the agency's base of scientific knowledge; 
and conducts education programs to promote safe and effective 
use of devices and radiological products.
    For these three major product-oriented programs, the agency 
utilizes a wide variety of scientific skills to deal with the 
many types of products regulated and the many scientific 
decisions FDA must make. These skills range from field 
investigators, all of whom must have education in the physical 
or biological sciences, to chemists, microbiologists, 
engineers, medical officers, and scientists from many other 
disciplines. Similarly, FDA utilizes a variety of laboratory 
facilities, both to test products for safety and to conduct the 
research necessary to evaluate health hazards and to develop 
the means to detect product hazards and prevent them.
    In addition, the National Center for Toxicological Research 
in Jefferson, AR, serves as a specialized resource for FDA's 
other program elements. This facility conducts research to 
improve the base of scientific knowledge and applied science 
which the agency uses in conducting its regulatory and consumer 
protection missions.

                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Mammography                    
                                            Appropriation     Prescription         clinics            Total     
                                                             drug user fees    inspection fees                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998....................      $857,501,000  \1\ ($117,122,00                                    
                                                                          0)     ($13,966,000)      $988,589,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................       878,884,000  \2\ (132,273,000                                    
                                                                           )      (14,385,000)  \3\ 1,025,542,00
                                                                                                               0
Committee recommendation................       940,367,000     (132,273,000)      (14,385,000)     1,087,025,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects additional $25,918,000 provided by Public Law 105-174.                                             
\2\ Includes $5,428,000 proposed to be transferred to the ``Rental payments (FDA)'' account                     
\3\ The President's budget assumes that an additional $127,717,000 in collections will be available to FDA for  
  fiscal year 1999 from proposed new user fees.                                                                 

                       committee recommendations

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $940,367,000. This amount is $82,866,000 more 
than the 1998 level and $61,483,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee also recommends $132,273,000 in 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, and 
$14,385,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee 
collections, as assumed in the President's budget. These 
amounts are $15,151,000 and $419,000 above the 1998 levels, 
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which 
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any 
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. The 
Committee continues its view that legislative proposals to 
establish new user fees should be submitted for consideration 
by the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress and 
not assumed in the appropriations request until enacted into 
law.
    Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee continues the 
fiscal year 1998 level of funding for activities of the FDA 
funded under the ``Salaries and expenses'' account. The FDA 
should submit notifications to the Committee in accordance with 
the Committee's statutory requirements for the reprogramming of 
funds if reallocations of these resources prove necessary 
during the course of the fiscal year.
    The Committee has included in its recommendation 
$82,866,000 for FDA rental payments to the General Services 
Administration [GSA], the same level as proposed in the budget. 
The Committee has become concerned that FDA's rent payments are 
in arrearage and that past administration budgets have failed 
to request amounts sufficient to fully compensate GSA for space 
and services received by the agency. The amount provided in 
this bill will begin to correct the rent payment deficiency and 
the Committee directs FDA to examine its space utilization 
requirements to contain these costs.
    The Committee intends that the new budget authority 
provided for rental payments to GSA will be supplemented by 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act collections, as proposed in the 
budget. The agency has indicated to the Committee that the 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 defines expenses 
associated with the process for the review of human drug 
applications to include leasing, maintenance, renovation, and 
repair of facilities. This section of the original act was left 
intact under provisions of the FDA Modernization Act enacted 
into law last year, but authorizes the transfer of fees from an 
account without fiscal year limitation to the appropriation 
account for salaries and expenses with such fiscal year 
limitation. It is for this reason the Committee recommends 
authority for rental payments to the GSA to be paid from FDA's 
``Salaries and expenses'' account.
    The Committee shares the administration's goal to protect 
the lives and health of the Nation's youth by reducing tobacco 
use by children and adolescents. Funding is provided at the 
fiscal year 1998 level of $34,000,000 to continue outreach and 
enforcement activities initiated by FDA during fiscal year 
1998. This funding should be supplanted and augmented by any 
tobacco settlement funds which become available.
    The Committee emphasizes that its action is in no way to be 
construed as concurring or disagreeing with any court ruling 
regarding FDA's authority to implement its tobacco rule or the 
proposed tobacco settlement.
    In addition, funding is continued at the fiscal year 1998 
level of $133,335,000 for FDA food safety initiatives. Of the 
funds available for food safety, FDA's Office of Seafood is to 
continue to research and develop methods to identify a 
reference dose and detect the different strains within the 
various vibrio pathogens, as well as continue research efforts 
to determine whether there are any risks associated with the 
consumption of shellfish and other seafood and illnesses from 
algae blooms, pfiesteria piccida, and other related toxins.
    The Committee encourages the FDA to restore funding to 
previous year levels to adequately fund the regulatory program 
for cosmetics in the Center for Food Safety and Applied 
Nutrition Office of Cosmetics and Colors.
    In light of the fact that generic drugs provide important 
cost benefits to consumers and the Federal Government, the 
Committee also encourages the FDA to devote additional 
resources to generic drug reviews in order to address the 
backlog of applications and provide reviews within the 6-month 
period required by statute.
    The FDA Modernization Act [FDAMA] of 1997 streamlined the 
regulatory process for approving food contact materials under a 
premarket notification [PMN] system. The Committee is aware of 
the need to implement the PMN provisions in order to spur 
innovative, new and improved food packaging materials that can 
keep food fresher, safer, and extend its shelf life.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1998 and budget 
request levels:

           FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES           
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
                                  1998                    recommendation
                                estimate    1999 request                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field                                               
 activities:                                                            
    Foods...................      203,830       198,611        203,830  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Food                                                 
         Safety and Applied                                             
         Nutrition [CFSAN]..       87,599        96,877         87,599  
        Field activities....      116,231       101,734        116,231  
            (Food safety                                                
             initiatives)...     (120,476)     (118,376)      (120,476) 
                             ===========================================
    Human drugs.............      199,305       178,528        199,305  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug                                                 
         Evaluation and                                                 
         Research [CDER]....      127,464       114,384        127,464  
        Orphan product                                                  
         grants.............       11,542        11,542         11,542  
        Field activities....       60,299        52,602         60,299  
                             ===========================================
    Biologics...............       96,279        91,428         96,279  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics                                            
         Evaluation and                                                 
         Research [CBER]....       78,535        78,386         78,535  
        Field activities....       17,744        13,042         17,744  
                             ===========================================
    Animal drugs............       41,973        30,584         41,973  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for                                                      
         Veterinary Medicine                                            
         [CVM]..............       29,375        22,064         29,375  
        Field activities....       12,598         8,520         12,598  
            (Food safety                                                
             initiatives)...       (4,100)       (3,980)        (4,100) 
                             ===========================================
    Medical and radiological                                            
     devices................      143,486       103,956        143,486  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices                                              
         and Radiological                                               
         Health  [CDRH].....      104,311        79,074        104,311  
        Field activities....       39,175        24,882         39,175  
                             ===========================================
    National Center for                                                 
     Toxicological Research                                             
     [NCTR].................       31,079        31,579         31,079  
        (Food safety                                                    
         initiatives).......  ............         (500)  ..............
                             ===========================================
Other activities:                                                       
    Office of the                                                       
     Commissioner...........       11,710        11,910         11,710  
    Tobacco.................       34,000       134,000         34,000  
    Office of Policy........        2,867         3,067          2,867  
    Office of External                                                  
     Affairs................       15,061        15,261         15,061  
    Office of Operations....        3,559         3,659          3,559  
    Office of Management and                                            
     Systems................       39,964        40,284         39,964  
    Central services........        8,533         8,533          8,533  
        (Food safety                                                    
         initiatives).......       (8,759)       (9,759)        (8,759) 
                             ===========================================
Rent and related activities.       25,855        27,505         25,855  
Rental payments to GSA......  \1\ (46,294)  \1\ (82,866)        82,866  
                             ===========================================
      Total, FDA salaries                                               
       and expenses, new                                                
       budget authority.....      857,501       878,884        940,367  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriated under separate account.                                

    FDA's core mission.--The Committee believes that FDA's 
first priority must be to ensure timely performance of its core 
mission. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires FDA 
to conduct various premarket approvals of foods, drugs, and 
medical devices within prescribed review periods, and to 
address ancillary matters related to those products. As it has 
expressed in the past, the Committee is concerned that FDA is 
not performing its core mission to review applications and 
petitions within the prescribed statutory review periods.
    For example, FDA's average review time for food additive 
applications in fiscal year 1996 (FDA's most recent numbers) 
was 32 months, 26 months over the deadline required by law 
(fiscal year 1998 House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations 
hearing record, volume 2, page 434). FDA's average review time 
from receipt to approval for abbreviated new drug applications 
in fiscal year 1997 was 25.6 months, 19 months over the 
deadline required by law (FDA, fiscal year 1999 justification 
of estimates for Appropriations Committees and performance 
plan, page 62). FDA's average review time from receipt to 
approval for new drug applications in fiscal year 1997 was 21.4 
months, 15 months over the deadline required by law (FDA, 
fiscal year 1999 justification of estimates for Appropriations 
Committees and performance plan, page 62). FDA's average review 
time from receipt to approval for new animal drug applications 
in fiscal year 1997 was 16.4 months, 10 months over the 
deadline required by law (FDA, fiscal year 1999 justification 
of estimates for Appropriations Committees and performance 
plan, page 79). FDA's average review time for premarket 
approval applications in fiscal year 1997 was 207 days, 27 days 
over the deadline required by law (FDA's fiscal year 1999 
justification of estimates for Appropriations Committees and 
performance plan, page 90).
    FDA delays have significant implications for public health. 
Each FDA delay extends the time it takes for consumers to 
benefit from new products that provide significant therapeutic 
benefits. The Committee believes that FDA's statutory 
obligations to perform its core regulatory activities must 
remain the agency's top priority.
    Food safety and food regulatory activities.--As part of 
FDA's core mission to protect the public health by ensuring 
that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary, and properly labeled, 
the Committee notes with approval that the Secretary has 
directed that food safety be given first priority among food 
regulatory activities of FDA. Continued FDA efforts to enhance 
food safety are an important part of keeping America's food 
supply the world's safest. FDA also has extensive food 
regulatory responsibility regarding activities that are not 
central to assuring food safety. As long as FDA has a statutory 
obligation to exercise regulatory control regarding these other 
important food matters, the Committee expects FDA to fulfill 
those duties in a timely and appropriate manner. If FDA deems 
the exercise of any of its regulatory responsibilities as 
unwarranted, FDA should promptly act to repeal those duties 
through rulemaking or the proposal of legislation.
    The Committee directs FDA to submit by February 1, 1999, a 
fiscal year 1998 food regulatory report regarding: petitions 
for rulemaking; applications for certificate of free sale; 
applications for temporary marketing permits; generally 
recognized as safe [GRAS] notifications; referrals from 
industry self-policing organizations; health claim notification 
submissions; nutrient content claim notification submissions; 
requests for advisory opinions; requests for alternative 
compliance procedures for nutrition labeling; requests for FDA 
approval of nutrition labeling data bases; and petitions for 
changes in standard of identity. The report should include the 
number pending, the number of days pending final action, the 
number approved and disapproved, the average time for filing 
until final agency action, and other reasonable measures of 
agency performance.
    The National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--The 
National Center has established a strong public-private 
partnership among the FDA, universities, and the food industry 
over the past 10 years to assist in providing safe technologies 
in processing and packaging the Nation's food supply. The 
Committee expects the FDA to at least maintain the Center's 
funding at the fiscal year 1998 level.
    Blood and blood product safety.--The Committee is 
encouraged by the steps taken by the FDA in working with the 
National Hemophilia Foundation to improve the safety of blood 
and blood products. Of particular importance are the FDA's 
efforts to enhance inspections of blood products manufacturing 
facilities and enforcement of good manufacturing practices. The 
Committee, however, remains concerned about our Nation's 
ability to respond rapidly and effectively to cases of viral or 
pathogenic contamination of blood products and, therefore, 
expects the FDA to work closely with the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention and the Foundation in establishing an 
ongoing system for timely investigation of and response to 
incidents of possible transmission of infectious disease. In 
addition, the Committee directs the FDA to ensure full 
implementation and oversight of a voluntary patient 
notification system and expects a progress report on its 
efforts no later than December 31, 1998.
    Over-the-counter sunscreen monograph.--The Committee is 
concerned with FDA's lack of progress in implementing a final 
rule for over-the-counter [OTC] sunscreen drug products. The 
Committee understands that the final rule is currently being 
drafted and is scheduled to be published no later than May 21, 
1999, the date set by the FDAMA. The Committee expects FDA to 
meet this deadline.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $21,350,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       8,350,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,350,000

    In addition to Washington area laboratories which are in 
six separate locations, there are 20 laboratories at other 
locations around the country, including regular field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Continued 
repairs, modifications, and improvements to FDA headquarters 
and field facilities must be made to preserve the properties, 
ensure employee safety, meet changing program requirements, and 
permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date.

                       committee recommendations

    For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and 
facilities, the Committee recommends $12,350,000. This amount 
is $900,000,000 less than the 1998 appropriation and $4,000,000 
more than the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to begin 
construction of phase III of the Arkansas Regional Laboratory 
for the Office of Regulatory Affairs in Jefferson, AR. This 
will allow the construction contractor, now on site, to move on 
to the final phase of the project without interruption.

                         rental payments (fda)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $46,294,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............................      82,866,000
Committee recommendation................................         ( \2\ )

\1\ Proposed to be supplemented by the transfer of $5,428,000 in 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] collections.
\2\ Included under ``Salaries and expenses'' account.

    Annual appropriations are made to agencies of the Federal 
Government to pay the General Services Administration [GSA] 
fees for rental of space and for related services.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee does not recommend a separate appropriation 
for rental payments of the Food and Drug Administration. This 
is $82,866,000 less than the budget estimate and $46,294,000 
less than the 1998 level. The full level requested in the 
budget for rental payments to the GSA is included in the total 
appropriation recommended by the Committee for FDA salaries and 
expenses.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $7,728,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       2,565,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,565,000

    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 [FAC]. Treasury payments 
annually reimburse the Corporation for interest expenses on 
debt issued by the Corporation, which is authorized to be 
issued through 1992. Treasury is authorized to pay all or part 
of FAC interest for the first 10 years on each 15-year debt 
issuance. Debt proceeds are used to provide assistance to 
financially troubled Farm Credit System lending institutions. 
Under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, the Farm Credit 
System's share of interest assessment for FAC debt would 
increase if the System's retained earnings exceeded 5 percent 
of its assets. For 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Treasury portion 
of interest assessments was estimated at 9, 7, and 2 percent, 
respectively.

                       committee recommendations

    For interest expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation as authorized by the Farm 
Credit Assistance Board, the Committee recommends $2,565,000. 
This is $5,163,000 less than the 1998 level and the same as the 
budget estimate.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $58,101,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      63,360,000
Committee recommendation................................      61,000,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
recommends $61,000,000. The amount provided is $2,899,000 more 
than the 1998 appropriation and $2,360,000 less than the budget 
request.
    Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide the full amount requested for the Commission. The 
appropriation recommended by the Committee will allow the 
Commission to maintain its current staffing level and meet 
space rental and other mandatory costs.

                       Farm Credit Administration

               revolving fund for administrative expenses

Limitations, 1998.......................................   ($34,423,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends no limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. This is the same as 
the budget request. A limitation of $34,423,000 was placed on 
FCA administrative expenses for fiscal year 1998.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701-721 of the general provisions are essentially 
the same as those included in the fiscal year 1998 and previous 
years' appropriations acts.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following 
provisions:
    Section 725 to designate the United States National Rice 
Germplasm Evaluation and Enhancement Center located in 
Stuttgart, AR, the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center.
    Section 726 to allow the Secretary to transfer up to 
$26,000,000 in discretionary funds not designated for a 
specific purpose or a specific location for distribution to or 
for the benefit of the lower Mississippi Delta region, as 
defined by Public Law 100-460, the Lower Mississippi Delta 
Development Act.
    Section 727 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127.
    Section 728 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel to enroll more than 140,000 acres in the Wetlands 
Reserve Program during fiscal year 1999.
    Section 729 to limit funds provided by the Food Stamp Act 
for commodity purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program authorized by the Food Stamp Act to $80,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1999.
    Section 730 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel to carry out the conservation farm option program 
authorized by section 335 of Public Law 104-127 for fiscal year 
1999.
    Section 731 to amend Public Law 102-237 to require the 
Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a program and take action 
to prevent inadvertent introduction of the brown tree snake in 
Hawaii and other parts of the United States.
    Section 732 to authorize funds provided for conservation 
options for Franklin County, MS, to be used for financial and 
technical assistance.
    Section 733 to reinstate the statutory language and 
regulations in existence prior to the enactment of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 regarding the 
definition of rural areas for certain business programs 
administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and the 
community facilities programs administered by the Rural Housing 
Service. The Department of Agriculture is directed to work with 
the authorizing committees of the House and Senate to develop a 
definition that accommodates the original intent of the 
Congress, but does not reduce the number of areas eligible for 
participation in the two programs.
    Section 734 to amend section 306D of the Consolidated Farm 
and Rural Development Act to authorize $25,000,000 for Native 
Alaskan villages water and sewer loans and grants and to 
require non-Federal cost sharing of 25 percent.
    Section 735 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act to the Food and Drug Administration to close or relocate or 
to plan to close or relocate the FDA Division of Drug Analysis 
from St. Louis, MO.
    Section 736 to prohibit the use of funds by the Department 
of Agriculture to carry out a commodity purchase program which 
would prohibit participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
    Section 737 to prohibit the use of appropriated funds to 
inspect or certify agricultural products unless the Secretary 
of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing 
equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and 
certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection 
and certification of agricultural products.
    Section 738 to amend the Arms Export Control Act to exempt 
certain programs of the Department of Agriculture from 
sanctions provisions relating to prohibitions on credit, credit 
guarantees, or other financial assistance.

                     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) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following 
information provides the definition of the term ``program, 
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 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 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 1999 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to 
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support 
of the fiscal year 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, regional, State, district, and county offices.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports 
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each 
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 1998:
    Dairy indemnity program;
    Section 515 rental housing loans;
    Section 538 guaranteed multifamily housing loans;
    Child Nutrition Programs;
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children;
    Farmers Market Nutrition Program;
    Nutrition program for the elderly; and
    Food assistance for nuclear-affected islands in the 
Pacific.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 2159, an original Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies appropriations bill, 1999, S. 2160, an original 
Military Construction appropriations bill, 1999, and an 
original Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, 1999 
and each subject to amendment and each subject to its budget 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 27-0, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mr. Faircloth
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Boxer

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

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

                          TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE

                   CHAPTER 17--MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

Sec. 426. Predatory and other wild animals; eradication and control; 
                    investigations, experiments, and tests by Secretary 
                    of Agriculture; cooperation with other agencies

    The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to 
conduct such investigations, experiments, and tests as he may 
deem necessary in order to determine, demonstrate, and 
promulgate the best methods of eradication, suppression, or 
bringing under control on national forests and other areas of 
the public domain as well as on State, Territory, or privately 
owned lands of mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, 
prairie dogs, gophers, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, brown 
tree snakes, and other animals injurious to agriculture, 
horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game animals, 
fur-bearing animals, and birds, and for the protection of stock 
and other domestic animals through the suppression of rabies 
and tularemia in predatory or other wild animals; and to 
conduct campaigns for the destruction or control of such 
animals: Provided, That in carrying out the provisions of this 
section the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate with States, 
individuals, and public and private agencies, organizations, 
and institutions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Historical and Statutory Notes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Prevention of Introduction of Brown Tree Snakes to Hawaii From Guam

    Pub.L. 102-237, Title X, Sec. 1013(a)-(c), Dec. 13, 1991, 
105 Stat. 1901, provided that:
    ``(a) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall[, to 
the extent practicable,] take such action as may be necessary 
to prevent the inadvertent introduction of brown tree snakes 
into other areas of the United States from Guam.
    ``(b) Introduction into Hawaii.--The Secretary shall 
initiate a program to prevent[, to the extent practicable,] the 
introduction of the brown tree snake into Hawaii from Guam. In 
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consider the use 
of sniffer or tracking dogs, snake traps, and other 
preventative processes or devices at aircraft and vessel 
loading facilities on Guam, Hawaii, or intermediate sites 
serving as transportation points that could result in the 
introduction of brown tree snakes into Hawaii.
    ``(c) Authority.--The Secretary shall use the authority 
provided under the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et 
seq.) [section 150aa et seq. of this title] to carry out 
subsections (a) and (b).''

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Section 306D (7 U.S.C. 1926d) of the Consolidated Farm and 
Rural Development Act is amended as follows:

SEC. 306D. WATER SYSTEMS FOR RURAL AND NATIVE VILLAGES IN ALASKA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to the State 
of Alaska for the benefit of rural or Native villages in Alaska 
to provide for the development and construction of water and 
wastewater systems to improve the health and sanitation 
conditions in those villages.
    (b) Matching Funds.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
under subsection (a), the State of Alaska shall provide [equal] 
25 percent in matching funds from non-Federal sources.
    (c) Consultation With the State of Alaska.--The Secretary 
shall consult with the State of Alaska on a method of 
prioritizing the allocation of grants under subsection (a) 
according to the needs of, and relative health and sanitation 
conditions in, each village.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$15,000,000] 
$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

              TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

                    CHAPTER 39--ARMS EXPORT CONTROL

            SUBCHAPTER X--NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION CONTROLS

Sec. 2799aa-1. Nuclear reprocessing transfers, illegal exports for 
                    nuclear explosive devices, transfers of nuclear 
                    explosive devices, and nuclear detonations

(a) Prohibitions on assistance to countries involved in transfer of 
                    nuclear reprocessing equipment, materials, or 
                    technology; exceptions; procedures applicable

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(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 [50 U.S.C.A. 
                Sec. 413 et seq.] (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.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL 
                                                                        YEAR 1999                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Senate Committee recommendation   
                                                                                                   Committee              compared with (+ or -)        
                        Item                          1998 appropriation    Budget estimate     recommendation   ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1998 appropriation    Budget estimate 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
           TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
        Production, Processing, and Marketing                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Secretary.............................         $2,836,000          $2,941,000          $2,836,000   ..................          -$105,000 
Executive Operations:                                                                                                                                   
    Chief Economist.................................          5,048,000           5,823,000           5,048,000   ..................           -775,000 
    Commission on 21st Century Production                                                                                                               
     Agriculture....................................  ..................            350,000   ..................  ..................           -350,000 
    National Appeals Division.......................         11,718,000          13,297,000          11,718,000   ..................         -1,579,000 
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis...........          5,986,000           6,045,000           5,986,000   ..................            -59,000 
    Office of Chief Information Officer.............          4,773,000           7,222,000           5,551,000           +$778,000          -1,671,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations...................         27,525,000          32,737,000          28,303,000            +778,000          -4,434,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of the Chief Financial Officer...............          4,283,000           4,562,000           4,283,000   ..................           -279,000 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration            613,000             636,000             613,000   ..................            -23,000 
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental                                                                                                         
 payments...........................................        131,085,000         147,689,000         137,184,000          +6,099,000         -10,505,000 
    Payments to GSA.................................        (98,600,000)       (108,057,000)       (108,057,000)        (+9,457,000)  ..................
    Building operations and maintenance.............        (24,785,000)        (24,127,000)        (24,127,000)          (-658,000)  ..................
    Repairs, renovations, and construction..........         (5,000,000)        (15,505,000)         (5,000,000)  ..................       (-10,505,000)
    Relocation expenses.............................         (2,700,000)  ..................  ..................        (-2,700,000)  ..................
Hazardous waste management..........................         15,700,000          15,700,000          15,700,000   ..................  ..................
Departmental administration.........................         29,231,000          32,168,000          27,034,000          -2,197,000          -5,134,000 
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers.........          3,000,000          10,000,000           3,000,000   ..................         -7,000,000 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional                                                                                                     
 Relations..........................................          3,668,000           3,814,000           3,668,000   ..................           -146,000 
Office of Communications............................          8,138,000           8,319,000           8,138,000   ..................           -181,000 
Office of the Inspector General.....................         63,128,000          87,689,000          63,128,000   ..................        -24,561,000 
Office of the General Counsel.......................         28,759,000          30,446,000          28,759,000   ..................         -1,687,000 
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,                                                                                                             
 Education and Economics............................            540,000             560,000             540,000   ..................            -20,000 
Economic Research Service...........................         71,604,000          55,839,000          53,109,000         -18,495,000          -2,730,000 
National Agricultural Statistics Service............        118,048,000         107,190,000         103,964,000         -14,084,000          -3,226,000 
    Census of Agriculture...........................        (36,327,000)        (23,741,000)        (23,599,000)       (-12,728,000)          (-142,000)
Agricultural Research Service.......................        744,382,000         776,828,000         767,921,000         +23,539,000          -8,907,000 
    Buildings and facilities........................         80,630,000          35,900,000          45,430,000         -35,200,000          +9,530,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service..........        825,012,000         812,728,000         813,351,000         -11,661,000            +623,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension                                                                                                    
 Service:                                                                                                                                               
    Research and education activities...............        431,410,000         412,589,000         434,782,000          +3,372,000         +22,193,000 
    Native Americans Institutions Endowment Fund....         (4,600,000)         (4,600,000)         (4,600,000)  ..................  ..................
    Extension Activities............................        423,376,000         418,651,000         432,181,000          +8,805,000         +13,530,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education,                                                                                                     
       and Extension Service........................        854,786,000         831,240,000         866,963,000         +12,177,000         +35,723,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and                                                                                                     
 Regulatory Pro-  grams.............................            618,000             642,000             618,000   ..................            -24,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:                                                                                                             
    Salaries and expenses...........................        425,932,000         417,752,000         424,473,000          -1,459,000          +6,721,000 
    AQI user fees...................................        (88,000,000)       (100,000,000)        (95,000,000)        (+7,000,000)        (-5,000,000)
    Buildings and facilities........................          4,200,000           5,200,000           4,200,000   ..................         -1,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection                                                                                                         
       Service......................................        430,132,000         422,952,000         428,673,000          -1,459,000          +5,721,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Agricultural Marketing Service:                                                                                                                         
    Marketing Services..............................         46,567,000          58,469,000          45,567,000          -1,000,000         -12,902,000 
        New user fees...............................         (4,000,000)         (4,000,000)         (4,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, from                                                                                                        
     fees collected)................................        (59,521,000)        (60,730,000)        (59,521,000)  ..................        (-1,209,000)
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and                                                                                                        
     supply (transfer from section 32)..............         10,690,000          10,998,000          10,998,000            +308,000   ..................
    Payments to states and possessions..............          1,200,000           1,200,000           1,200,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Marketing Service.........         58,457,000          70,667,000          57,765,000            -692,000         -12,902,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards                                                                                                                
 Administration.....................................         25,390,000          11,797,000          26,390,000          +1,000,000         +14,593,000 
    Inspection and Weighing Services (limitation on                                                                                                     
     administrative expenses, from fees collected)..        (43,092,000)        (42,557,000)        (42,557,000)          (-535,000)  ..................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.......            446,000             598,000             446,000   ..................           -152,000 
Food Safety and Inspection Service..................        588,761,000         149,566,000         605,149,000         +16,388,000        +455,583,000 
    Lab accreditation fees \1\......................         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing..      3,291,760,000       2,840,480,000       3,279,614,000         -12,146,000        +439,134,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              Farm Assistance Programs                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign                                                                                                      
 Agricultural Services..............................            572,000             597,000             572,000   ..................            -25,000 
Farm Service Agency:                                                                                                                                    
    Salaries and expenses...........................        699,579,000         723,478,000         710,842,000         +11,263,000         -12,636,000 
    (Transfer from export loans)....................           (589,000)           (672,000)           (589,000)  ..................           (-83,000)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)..................           (815,000)           (845,000)           (815,000)  ..................           (-30,000)
    (Transfer from ACIF)............................       (209,861,000)       (227,673,000)       (209,861,000)  ..................       (-17,812,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and expenses..................       (910,844,000)       (952,668,000)       (922,107,000)       (+11,263,000)       (-30,561,000)
    State mediation grants..........................          2,000,000           4,000,000           2,000,000   ..................         -2,000,000 
    Dairy indemnity program.........................            550,000             450,000             450,000            -100,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Service Agency....................        702,129,000         727,928,000         713,292,000         +11,163,000         -14,636,000 
    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program                                                                                                          
     Account:                                                                                                                                           
        Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                            
            Farm ownership loans:                                                                                                                       
                Direct..............................        (78,320,000)        (85,000,000)        (63,872,000)       (-14,448,000)       (-21,128,000)
                Guaranteed..........................       (425,000,000)       (425,031,000)       (425,000,000)  ..................           (-31,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (503,320,000)       (510,031,000)       (488,872,000)       (-14,448,000)       (-21,159,000)
            Farm operating loans:                                                                                                                       
                Direct..............................       (565,000,000)       (500,000,000)       (560,472,000)        (-4,528,000)       (+60,472,000)
                Guaranteed unsubsidized.............       (992,906,000)     (1,700,000,000)       (992,906,000)  ..................      (-707,094,000)
                Guaranteed subsidized...............       (235,000,000)       (200,000,000)       (235,000,000)  ..................       (+35,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................     (1,792,906,000)     (2,400,000,000)     (1,788,378,000)        (-4,528,000)      (-611,622,000)
            Indian tribe land acquisition loans.....         (1,000,000)         (1,003,000)         (1,000,000)  ..................            (-3,000)
            Emergency disaster loans................        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................
            Boll weevil eradication loans...........        (53,467,000)        (30,000,000)        (40,000,000)       (-13,467,000)       (+10,000,000)
            Credit sales of acquired property.......        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations............     (2,400,693,000)     (2,991,034,000)     (2,368,250,000)       (-32,443,000)      (-622,784,000)
        Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                 
            Farm ownership loans:                                                                                                                       
                Direct..............................          8,329,000          12,725,000           9,562,000          +1,233,000          -3,163,000 
                Guaranteed..........................         16,407,000           6,758,000           6,758,000          -9,649,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................         24,736,000          19,483,000          16,320,000          -8,416,000          -3,163,000 
            Farm operating loans:                                                                                                                       
                Direct..............................         36,823,000          34,150,000          38,280,000          +1,457,000          +4,130,000 
                Guaranteed unsubsidized.............         11,617,000          19,720,000          11,518,000             -99,000          -8,202,000 
                Guaranteed subsidized...............         22,654,000          17,480,000          20,539,000          -2,115,000          +3,059,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................         71,094,000          71,350,000          70,337,000            -757,000          -1,013,000 
            Indian tribe land acquisition...........            132,000             153,000             153,000             +21,000   ..................
            Emergency disaster loans................          6,008,000           5,900,000           5,900,000            -108,000   ..................
            Boll weevil loans subsidy...............            472,000             432,000             576,000            +104,000            +144,000 
            Credit sales of acquired property.......          3,255,000           3,260,000           3,260,000              +5,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies.................        105,697,000         100,578,000          96,546,000          -9,151,000          -4,032,000 
        ACIF expenses:                                                                                                                                  
            Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)..        209,861,000         227,673,000         209,861,000   ..................        -17,812,000 
            Administrative expenses.................         10,000,000          10,000,000          10,000,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF expenses..................        219,861,000         237,673,000         219,861,000   ..................        -17,812,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance                                                                                                      
               Fund.................................        325,558,000         338,251,000         316,407,000          -9,151,000         -21,844,000 
                  (Loan authorization)..............     (2,400,693,000)     (2,991,034,000)     (2,368,250,000)       (-32,443,000)      (-622,784,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              Total, Farm Service Agency............      1,027,687,000       1,066,179,000       1,029,699,000          +2,012,000         -36,480,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency:                                                                                                                                 
    Administrative and operating expenses...........         64,000,000          66,000,000          64,000,000   ..................         -2,000,000 
    Sales commission of agents......................        188,571,000   ..................  ..................       -188,571,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Risk Management Agency.................        252,571,000          66,000,000          64,000,000        -188,571,000          -2,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance Programs...............      1,280,830,000       1,132,776,000       1,094,271,000        -186,559,000         -38,505,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                    Corporations                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal Crop                                                                                                        
 Insurance Corporation fund.........................      1,584,135,000       1,504,036,000       1,504,036,000         -80,099,000   ..................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:                                                                                                                      
    Reimbursement for net realized losses...........        783,507,000       8,439,000,000       8,439,000,000      +7,655,493,000   ..................
    Operations and maintenance for hazardous waste                                                                                                      
     management (limitation on administrative                                                                                                           
     expenses)......................................         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Corporations.........................      2,367,642,000       9,943,036,000       9,943,036,000      +7,575,394,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
        Total, title I, Agricultural Programs.......      6,940,232,000      13,916,292,000      14,316,921,000      +7,376,689,000        +400,629,000 
            (By transfer)...........................       (211,265,000)       (229,190,000)       (211,265,000)  ..................       (-17,925,000)
            (Loan authorization)....................     (2,400,693,000)     (2,991,034,000)     (2,368,250,000)       (-32,443,000)      (-622,784,000)
            (Limitation on administrative expenses).       (107,613,000)       (108,287,000)       (107,078,000)          (-535,000)        (-1,209,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources                                                                                                     
 and Environment....................................            693,000             719,000             693,000   ..................            -26,000 
Natural Resources Conservation Service:                                                                                                                 
    Conservation operations.........................        632,853,000         742,231,000         638,231,000          +5,378,000        -104,000,000 
    Watershed surveys and planning \2\..............         11,190,000   ..................         11,190,000   ..................        +11,190,000 
    Watershed and flood prevention operations \3\...        101,036,000          49,000,000         101,036,000   ..................        +52,036,000 
    Resource conservation and development...........         34,377,000          34,377,000          34,377,000   ..................  ..................
    Forestry incentives program.....................          6,325,000   ..................          6,325,000   ..................         +6,325,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service.        785,781,000         825,608,000         791,159,000          +5,378,000         -34,449,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs........        786,474,000         826,327,000         791,852,000          +5,378,000         -34,475,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
 TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                    
                      PROGRAMS                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.            588,000             611,000             588,000   ..................            -23,000 
Rural community advancement program.................        652,197,000         715,172,000         700,201,000         +48,004,000         -14,971,000 
Rural Housing Service:                                                                                                                                  
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                                                       
        Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                            
            Single family (sec. 502)................     (1,000,000,000)     (1,000,000,000)     (1,000,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.............     (3,000,000,000)     (3,000,000,000)     (3,000,000,000)  ..................  ..................
            Housing repair (sec. 504)...............        (30,000,000)        (25,001,000)        (30,000,000)  ..................        (+4,999,000)
            Farm labor (sec. 514)...................        (15,000,000)        (32,108,000)        (15,758,000)          (+758,000)       (-16,350,000)
            Rental housing (sec. 515)...............       (128,640,000)       (100,000,000)       (128,640,000)  ..................       (+28,640,000)
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec.                                                                                                       
             538)...................................        (19,700,000)       (150,000,000)        (75,000,000)       (+55,300,000)       (-75,000,000)
            Site loans (sec. 524)...................           (600,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)        (+4,400,000)  ..................
            Self-help housing land development fund.           (587,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)        (+4,413,000)  ..................
            Credit sales of acquired property.......        (25,000,000)        (30,007,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................        (-5,007,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations............     (4,219,527,000)     (4,347,116,000)     (4,284,398,000)       (+64,871,000)       (-62,718,000)
        Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                 
            Single family (sec. 502)................        128,100,000         118,200,000         118,200,000          -9,900,000   ..................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.............          6,900,000           2,700,000           2,700,000          -4,200,000   ..................
            Housing repair (sec. 504)...............         10,300,000           8,808,000          10,569,000            +269,000          +1,761,000 
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec.                                                                                                       
             538)...................................          1,200,000           3,480,000           1,740,000            +540,000          -1,740,000 
            Farm labor (sec. 514)...................          7,388,000          16,706,000           8,199,000            +811,000          -8,507,000 
            Rental housing (sec. 515)...............         68,745,000          48,250,000          62,069,000          -6,676,000         +13,819,000 
            Site loans (sec. 524)...................  ..................             16,500              16,000             +16,000                -500 
            Credit sales of acquired property.......          3,492,000           4,672,000           3,826,000            +334,000            -846,000 
            Self-help housing land development fund.             17,000             282,000             282,000            +265,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies.................        226,142,000         203,114,500         207,601,000         -18,541,000          +4,486,500 
        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                       
         RHS).......................................        354,785,000         367,857,000         360,785,000          +6,000,000          -7,072,000 
        Rental assistance program:                                                                                                                      
            (Sec. 521)..............................        535,497,000         577,497,000         577,497,000         +42,000,000   ..................
            (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)).....................          5,900,000           5,900,000           5,900,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental assistance program......        541,397,000         583,397,000         583,397,000         +42,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund...      1,122,324,000       1,154,368,500       1,151,783,000         +29,459,000          -2,585,500 
                  (Loan authorization)..............     (4,219,527,000)     (4,347,116,000)     (4,284,398,000)       (+64,871,000)       (-62,718,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help housing grants.............         26,000,000          26,000,000          26,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Rural community fire protection grants..........          2,000,000   ..................  ..................         -2,000,000   ..................
    Rural housing assistance grants.................         45,720,000          46,900,000          45,720,000   ..................         -1,180,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and payments.................         73,720,000          72,900,000          71,720,000          -2,000,000          -1,180,000 
    RHS expenses:                                                                                                                                       
        Salaries and expenses.......................         57,958,000          60,978,000          60,978,000          +3,020,000   ..................
        (Transfer from RHIF)........................       (354,785,000)       (367,857,000)       (360,785,000)        (+6,000,000)        (-7,072,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RHS expenses.......................       (412,743,000)       (428,835,000)       (421,763,000)        (+9,020,000)        (-7,072,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Housing Service..............      1,254,002,000       1,288,246,500       1,284,481,000         +30,479,000          -3,765,500 
              (Loan authorization)..................     (4,219,527,000)     (4,347,116,000)     (4,284,398,000)       (+64,871,000)       (-62,718,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:                                                                                                                     
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:                                                                                                        
        (Loan authorization)........................        (35,000,000)        (35,000,000)        (33,000,000)        (-2,000,000)        (-2,000,000)
        Loan subsidy................................         16,888,000          17,622,000          16,615,000            -273,000          -1,007,000 
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RBCS)..          3,482,000           3,547,000           3,482,000   ..................            -65,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development Loan Fund........         20,370,000          21,169,000          20,097,000            -273,000          -1,072,000 
    Rural Economic Development Loans Program                                                                                                            
     Account:                                                                                                                                           
        (Loan authorization)........................        (25,000,000)        (15,000,000)        (23,000,000)        (-2,000,000)        (+8,000,000)
        Direct subsidy..............................          5,978,000           3,783,000           5,801,000            -177,000          +2,018,000 
    Rural cooperative development grants............          3,000,000           5,700,000           3,000,000   ..................         -2,700,000 
    RBCS expenses:                                                                                                                                      
        Salaries and expenses.......................         25,680,000          26,396,000          25,680,000   ..................           -716,000 
        (Transfer from RDLFP).......................         (3,482,000)         (3,547,000)         (3,482,000)  ..................           (-65,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RBCS expenses......................        (29,162,000)        (29,943,000)        (29,162,000)  ..................          (-781,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.         55,028,000          57,048,000          54,578,000            -450,000          -2,470,000 
              (By transfer).........................         (3,482,000)         (3,547,000)         (3,482,000)  ..................           (-65,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................        (60,000,000)        (50,000,000)        (56,000,000)        (-4,000,000)        (+6,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Alternative Agricultural Research and                                                                                                               
     Commercialization Revolving Fund...............          7,000,000          10,000,000           7,000,000   ..................         -3,000,000 
Rural Utilities Service:                                                                                                                                
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications                                                                                                        
     Loans Program Account:                                                                                                                             
        Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                            
            Direct loans:                                                                                                                               
                Electric 5 percent..................       (125,000,000)        (55,000,000)        (71,500,000)       (-53,500,000)       (+16,500,000)
                Telecommunications 5 percent........        (75,000,000)        (50,000,000)        (75,000,000)  ..................       (+25,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (200,000,000)       (105,000,000)       (146,500,000)       (-53,500,000)       (+41,500,000)
            Treasury rates: Telecommunications......       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)       (250,000,000)       (-50,000,000)       (-50,000,000)
            Muni-rate: Electric.....................       (500,000,000)       (250,000,000)       (295,000,000)      (-205,000,000)       (+45,000,000)
            FFB loans:                                                                                                                                  
                Electric, regular...................       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)       (700,000,000)      (+400,000,000)      (+400,000,000)
                Telecommunications..................       (120,000,000)       (120,000,000)       (120,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (420,000,000)       (420,000,000)       (820,000,000)      (+400,000,000)      (+400,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations........     (1,420,000,000)     (1,075,000,000)     (1,511,500,000)       (+91,500,000)      (+436,500,000)
        Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                 
            Direct loans:                                                                                                                               
                Electric 5 percent..................          9,325,000           7,172,000           9,325,000   ..................         +2,153,000 
                Telecommunications 5 percent........          2,940,000           4,895,000           7,342,000          +4,402,000          +2,447,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................         12,265,000          12,067,000          16,667,000          +4,402,000          +4,600,000 
            Treasury rates: Telecommunications......             60,000             810,000             675,000            +615,000            -135,000 
            Muni-rate: Electric.....................         21,100,000          21,900,000          25,842,000          +4,742,000          +3,942,000 
            FFB loans: Electric, regular............          2,760,000   ..................  ..................         -2,760,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies.................         36,185,000          34,777,000          43,184,000          +6,999,000          +8,407,000 
        RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                      
         RUS).......................................         29,982,000          32,000,000          29,982,000   ..................         -2,018,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Electrification and                                                                                                              
           Telecommunications Loans Program Account.         66,167,000          66,777,000          73,166,000          +6,999,000          +6,389,000 
              (Loan authorization)..................     (1,420,000,000)     (1,075,000,000)     (1,511,500,000)       (+91,500,000)      (+436,500,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:                                                                                                               
        (Loan authorization)........................       (175,000,000)       (175,000,000)       (140,000,000)       (-35,000,000)       (-35,000,000)
        Direct loan subsidy.........................          3,710,000           4,637,500           3,710,000   ..................           -927,500 
        RTP administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                        
         RUS).......................................          3,000,000           3,000,000           3,000,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................          6,710,000           7,637,500           6,710,000   ..................           -927,500 
    Distance learning and telemedicine program:                                                                                                         
        (Loan authorization)........................       (150,000,000)       (150,000,000)       (150,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Direct loan subsidy.........................             30,000             180,000             180,000            +150,000   ..................
        Grants......................................         12,500,000          15,000,000          12,500,000   ..................         -2,500,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................         12,530,000          15,180,000          12,680,000            +150,000          -2,500,000 
    RUS expenses:                                                                                                                                       
        Salaries and expenses.......................         33,000,000          33,445,000          33,000,000   ..................           -445,000 
        (Transfer from RETLP).......................        (29,982,000)        (32,000,000)        (29,982,000)  ..................        (-2,018,000)
        (Transfer from RTP).........................         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RUS expenses.......................        (65,982,000)        (68,445,000)        (65,982,000)  ..................        (-2,463,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Utilities Service............        118,407,000         123,039,500         125,556,000          +7,149,000          +2,516,500 
              (By transfer).........................        (32,982,000)        (35,000,000)        (32,982,000)  ..................        (-2,018,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................     (1,745,000,000)     (1,400,000,000)     (1,801,500,000)       (+56,500,000)      (+401,500,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, title III, Rural Economic and                                                                                                          
           Community Development Programs...........      2,087,222,000       2,194,117,000       2,172,404,000         +85,182,000         -21,713,000 
              (By transfer).........................       (391,249,000)       (406,404,000)       (397,249,000)        (+6,000,000)        (-9,155,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................     (6,024,527,000)     (5,797,116,000)     (6,141,898,000)      (+117,371,000)      (+344,782,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition                                                                                                       
 and Consumer Services..............................            554,000             573,000             554,000   ..................            -19,000 
Food and Consumer Service:                                                                                                                              
    Child nutrition programs........................      2,612,675,000       3,887,703,000       4,171,747,000      +1,559,072,000        +284,044,000 
        Discretionary spending......................          3,750,000          10,000,000   ..................         -3,750,000         -10,000,000 
        Transfer from section 32....................      5,151,391,000       5,332,194,000       5,048,150,000        -103,241,000        -284,044,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs...........      7,767,816,000       9,229,897,000       9,219,897,000      +1,452,081,000         -10,000,000 
    Special supplemental nutrition program for                                                                                                          
     women, infants, and children (WIC).............      3,924,000,000       4,081,000,000       3,924,000,000   ..................       -157,000,000 
        Reserve.....................................  ..................        (20,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (-20,000,000)
    Food stamp program:                                                                                                                                 
        Expenses....................................     23,736,479,000      22,365,806,000      22,365,806,000      -1,370,673,000   ..................
        Reserve.....................................        100,000,000       1,000,000,000         100,000,000   ..................       -900,000,000 
        Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico........      1,204,000,000       1,236,000,000       1,236,000,000         +32,000,000   ..................
        The emergency food assistance program.......        100,000,000         100,000,000          80,000,000         -20,000,000         -20,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp program.................     25,140,479,000      24,701,806,000      23,781,806,000      -1,358,673,000        -920,000,000 
    Commodity assistance program....................        141,000,000         317,081,000         141,000,000   ..................       -176,081,000 
    Food donations programs for selected groups:                                                                                                        
        Needy family program........................          1,165,000   ..................          1,081,000             -84,000          +1,081,000 
        Elderly feeding program.....................        140,000,000   ..................        140,000,000   ..................       +140,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food donations programs \4\........        141,165,000   ..................        141,081,000             -84,000        +141,081,000 
    Food program administration.....................        107,505,000         111,848,000         109,069,000          +1,564,000          -2,779,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Consumer Service..............     37,221,965,000      38,441,632,000      37,316,853,000         +94,888,000      -1,124,779,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs.......     37,222,519,000      38,442,205,000      37,317,407,000         +94,888,000      -1,124,798,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
  TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
Foreign Agricultural Sevice and General Sales                                                                                                           
 Manager:                                                                                                                                               
    Appropriation...................................        131,295,000         141,087,000         131,795,000            +500,000          -9,292,000 
    (Transfer from export loans)....................         (3,231,000)         (3,413,000)         (3,231,000)  ..................          (-182,000)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)..................         (1,035,000)         (1,093,000)         (1,035,000)  ..................           (-58,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Foreign Agriculture Service and General        135,561,000         145,593,000         136,061,000            +500,000          -9,532,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:                                                                                                              
    Title I--Credit sales:                                                                                                                              
        Program level...............................       (244,508,000)       (111,558,000)       (221,083,000)       (-23,425,000)      (+109,525,000)
            Direct loans............................       (226,900,000)       (102,163,000)       (203,475,000)       (-23,425,000)      (+101,312,000)
            Ocean freight differential..............         17,608,000           9,395,000          17,608,000   ..................         +8,213,000 
    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)        (30,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Appropriation...............................         30,000,000          30,000,000          30,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Loan subsidies..................................        176,596,000          88,667,000         176,596,000   ..................        +87,929,000 
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                                                              
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).....          1,035,000           1,093,000           1,035,000   ..................            -58,000 
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).......            815,000             845,000             815,000   ..................            -30,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................          1,850,000           1,938,000           1,850,000   ..................            -88,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:                                                                                                                        
              Program level.........................     (1,111,508,000)       (978,558,000)     (1,088,083,000)       (-23,425,000)      (+109,525,000)
              Appropriation.........................      1,063,054,000         967,000,000       1,063,054,000   ..................        +96,054,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account:                                                                                                                       
    Loan guarantees: Export credit..................     (5,500,000,000)     (4,615,000,000)  ..................    (-5,500,000,000)    (-4,615,000,000)
    Loan subsidy....................................        527,546,000         253,000,000   ..................       -527,546,000        -253,000,000 
    Emerging markets export credit..................       (200,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-200,000,000)  ..................
    Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):                                                                                                               
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).....          3,231,000           3,413,000           3,231,000   ..................           -182,000 
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).......            589,000             672,000             589,000   ..................            -83,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account...        531,366,000         257,085,000           3,820,000        -527,546,000        -253,265,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and                                                                                                        
           Related Programs.........................      1,725,715,000       1,365,172,000       1,198,669,000        -527,046,000        -166,503,000 
              (By transfer).........................         (4,266,000)         (4,506,000)         (4,266,000)  ..................          (-240,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG                                                                                                        
                   ADMINISTRATION                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
       DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
            Food and Drug Administration                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.........        857,501,000         878,884,000         940,367,000         +82,866,000         +61,483,000 
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act..................       (117,122,000)       (126,845,000)       (132,273,000)       (+15,151,000)        (+5,428,000)
    Mammography clinics user fee....................        (13,966,000)        (14,385,000)        (14,385,000)          (+419,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, program level.......................       (988,589,000)     (1,020,114,000)     (1,087,025,000)       (+98,436,000)       (+66,911,000)
Buildings and facilities............................         21,350,000           8,350,000          12,350,000          -9,000,000          +4,000,000 
Rental payments (FDA)...............................         46,294,000          82,866,000   ..................        -46,294,000         -82,866,000 
    By transfer from PDUFA..........................  ..................         (5,428,000)  ..................  ..................        (-5,428,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, program level.......................        (46,294,000)        (88,294,000)  ..................       (-46,294,000)       (-88,294,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug Administration...........        925,145,000         970,100,000         952,717,000         +27,572,000         -17,383,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
             DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm                                                                                                      
 Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation.....          7,728,000           2,565,000           2,565,000          -5,163,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
                INDEPENDENT AGENCIES                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Commodity Futures Trading Commission................         58,101,000          63,360,000          61,000,000          +2,899,000          -2,360,000 
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on                                                                                                               
 administrative expenses)...........................        (34,423,000)  ..................  ..................       (-34,423,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and                                                                                                    
       Drug Administration..........................        990,974,000       1,036,025,000       1,016,282,000         +25,308,000         -19,743,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
         TITLE VII--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
              DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
                 Farm Service Agency                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Emergency conservation program......................         34,000,000   ..................  ..................        -34,000,000   ..................
Tree assistance program.............................         14,000,000   ..................  ..................        -14,000,000   ..................
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                                                     
    Emergency insured loans:                                                                                                                            
        Loan subsidy................................         21,000,000   ..................  ..................        -21,000,000   ..................
        (Loan authorization)........................         87,400,000   ..................  ..................        -87,400,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Farm Service Agency................         69,000,000   ..................  ..................        -69,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
            Commodity Credit Corporation                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Livestock disaster assistance fund..................          4,000,000   ..................  ..................         -4,000,000   ..................
Dairy production indemnity assistance program.......          6,800,000   ..................  ..................         -6,800,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Commodity Credit Corporation...........         10,800,000   ..................  ..................        -10,800,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
       Natural Resources Conservation Service                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Watershed and flood prevention operations...........         80,000,000   ..................  ..................        -80,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title VII, Emergency appropriations....        159,800,000   ..................  ..................       -159,800,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Grand total:                                                                                                                                      
          New budget (obligational) authority.......     49,912,936,000      57,780,138,000      56,813,535,000      +6,900,599,000        -966,603,000 
              Appropriations........................    (49,753,136,000)    (57,780,138,000)    (56,813,535,000)    (+7,060,399,000)      (-966,603,000)
          (By transfer).............................       (606,780,000)       (640,100,000)       (612,780,000)        (+6,000,000)       (-27,320,000)
          (Loan authorization)......................    (14,012,620,000)    (13,403,150,000)     (8,510,148,000)    (-5,502,472,000)    (-4,893,002,000)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...       (142,036,000)       (108,287,000)       (107,078,000)       (-34,958,000)        (-1,209,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                   RECAPITULATION                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Title I--Agricultural programs......................      6,940,232,000      13,916,292,000      14,316,921,000      +7,376,689,000        +400,629,000 
Title II--Conservation programs.....................        786,474,000         826,327,000         791,852,000          +5,378,000         -34,475,000 
Title III--Rural economic and community development                                                                                                     
 programs...........................................      2,087,222,000       2,194,117,000       2,172,404,000         +85,182,000         -21,713,000 
Title IV--Domestic food programs....................     37,222,519,000      38,442,205,000      37,317,407,000         +94,888,000      -1,124,798,000 
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs....      1,725,715,000       1,365,172,000       1,198,669,000        -527,046,000        -166,503,000 
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug                                                                                                            
 Administration.....................................        990,974,000       1,036,025,000       1,016,282,000         +25,308,000         -19,743,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, new budget (obligational) authority....     49,753,136,000      57,780,138,000      56,813,535,000      +7,060,399,000        -966,603,000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.                                                                                                                       
\2\ Budget proposes to fund this account under Conservation Operations.                                                                                 
\3\ Budget proposes to fund technical assistance for WFPO under Conservation Operations.                                                                
\4\ Budget proposes to include funding for these programs under the Commodity Assistance Program in fiscal year 1998.                                   



