[Senate Report 105-51]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 116
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                     105-51
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1998

                                _______
                                

                 July 17, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1033]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1033) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Total obligational authority, fiscal year 1998

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $50,684,701,000
Amount of 1997 appropriations acts to date..............  53,889,409,000
Amount of estimates, 1998...............................  52,302,190,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Under the appropriations provided in 1997...........   3,204,708,000
    Under the estimates for 1998........................   1,617,489,000



                            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..........................................     8
Executive operations.............................................     8
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization...........    10
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    10
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    12
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.........    12
Hazardous waste management.......................................    14
Departmental administration......................................    14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    15
Office of Communications.........................................    16
Office of the Inspector General..................................    16
Office of the General Counsel....................................    17
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
  Economics......................................................    17
Economic Research Service........................................    18
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    18
Agricultural Research Service....................................    19
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....    32
Office of Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
  Programs.......................................................    41
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......................    41
Agricultural Marketing Service...................................    47
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    50
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    51
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    51
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
  Services.......................................................    53
Farm Service Agency..............................................    53
Risk Management Agency...........................................    59

                              Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund..........................    59
Commodity Credit Corporation fund................................    60

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
  Environment....................................................    65
Natural Resources Conservation Service...........................    65

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
  Development....................................................    73
Rural Community Advancement Program..............................    77
Rural Housing Service............................................    78
Rural Business-Cooperative Service...............................    85
Rural Utilities Service..........................................    90

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 
  Services.......................................................    96
Food and Consumer Service........................................    96

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service and the General Sales Manager.......   109

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Food and Drug Administration.....................................   115

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service.....................................   121

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   121
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   122

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   124
Program, project, and activity...................................   124
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   125
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   125
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   126

                           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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998 Committee 
                                         1997 \1\        recommendation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....     $7,717,934,000     $6,921,331,000
Title II: Conservation programs...        770,554,000        827,598,000
Title III: Rural economic and                                           
 community development programs...      2,003,756,000      2,078,855,000
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     40,490,965,000     38,146,083,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and                                         
 related programs.................      1,593,194,000      1,729,840,000
Title VI: Related agencies........        953,006,000        980,994,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                                                 
       (obligational) authority...     53,529,409,000     50,684,701,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $360,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 emergency appropriations  
  in title VII of Public Law 105-18.                                    

         COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 308 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 in the First Concurrent                                                        
 Resolution for 1998: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural                                                        
 Development, and Related Agencies                                                                              
    Defense discretionary...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Nondefense discretionary................................       13,791       13,791       14,167   \1\ 14,039
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................       35,048       36,711       35,205       35,205
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                      
    1998....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 41,756
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,294
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          582
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          287
    2002 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          455
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1998                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA       16,553           NA       15,008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 and extension activities, a 
variety of 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 602(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. The Committee understands that USDA 
is revising its plan to include all six required components of 
a strategic plan, as detailed in section 306(a) of title 5, 
U.S.C. 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, 1997....................................      $2,836,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       2,872,000
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 $36,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1997 appropriation.

                          Executive Operations

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

                            Chief Economist

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $4,231,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       5,308,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,252,000

    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 $5,252,000. This amount is $56,000 less than the 
budget request and $1,021,000 more than the 1997 appropriation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the additional 
$875,000 requested to enhance agriculture weather services and 
assumes the savings identified in the budget from Federal 
employment reductions due to streamlining.

           COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE

Appropriations, 1997....................................................
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      $1,100,000
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, and a review of the future of 
production agriculture and the appropriate role of the Federal 
Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee does not 
recommend a separate appropriation for the Commission on 21st 
Century Production Agriculture. This is $1,100,000 less than 
the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 1997 level. 
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.

                       National Appeals Division

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $11,718,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      13,359,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,360,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends 
$12,360,000. This amount is $999,000 less than the budget 
request and $642,000 more than the 1997 appropriation.
    The Committee provides $642,000 of the total increase 
requested in the budget for participant appeals monitoring and 
employee training. These additional funds are to be applied to 
the Division's highest priority needs.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $5,986,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       5,918,000
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 
1997 appropriation and $68,000 more than the budget request.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Appropriations, 1997 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 1998...................................        $795,000
Committee recommendation................................         783,000

\1\ Fiscal year 1997 funding of $783,000 for OSDBU was included in the 
departmental administration appropriation.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $783,000 for the Office of Small 
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. This amount is $12,000 
less than the budget request and the same as the 1997 level of 
funding provided for the functions of this Office in the 
departmental administration appropriation.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 1997....................................................
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      $4,828,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,773,000

    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). Department level information resources management 
functions were transferred from Departmental Administration to 
this Office for fiscal year 1997 in the amount of $4,498,000.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $4,773,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $55,000 less than the 
budget request and $4,773,000 more than the 1997 appropriation.

                     Information Technology Systems

    In each of the previous 2 years, the Committee has 
recommended that all USDA information technology [IT] systems 
investments be deferred until the Department examines and 
implements a Department-wide information systems technology 
architecture. The Committee notes that an integrated plan for 
coordination and control of USDA computer system purchases and 
upgrades still is not in place and that information system 
management problems have continued to plague the Department.
    The Committee is encouraged by recent actions of the 
Secretary to extend the moratorium on IT purchases, to provide 
the authority and resources to the chief information officer 
necessary to make fundamental changes in IT management, to hold 
the chief information officer accountable for results, and to 
demand full support from subcabinet officials and agency heads 
in correcting IT problems.
    The Committee believes that the acquisition of new systems 
and major system upgrades of all agencies of the Department 
should be subject to approval by the chief information officer 
and subject to standards set in a comprehensive Department-wide 
systems integration plan. In addition, concurrence of the 
Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for IT 
system purchases and upgrades should be provided to assure that 
the acquisitions are cost beneficial and support program 
priorities. The Committee includes a provision in the bill 
prohibiting the Department from using funds made available by 
the act to acquire new IT systems or significant upgrades 
unless approved by the chief information officer and concurred 
with by the Executive Information Technology Investment Review 
Board.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $4,283,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       4,718,000
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. It is also responsible for the 
management and operation of the National Finance Center. The 
Office also provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to 
the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff offices, Office 
of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and 
executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee recommends $4,283,000. This amount is $435,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1997 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, 1997....................................        $613,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         621,000
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 1997 level and $8,000 less than the budget 
request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $144,053,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     131,085,000
Committee recommendation................................     131,085,000

    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 $131,085,000. This amount is the same as 
the budget request and $12,968,000 less than the 1997 
appropriation. Included in the Committee's recommendation is 
$98,600,000 for rental payments to the General Services 
Administration [GSA]; $24,785,000 for building operations and 
maintenance; $5,000,000 for repairs, renovations, and 
construction; and $2,700,000 for relocation expenses.
    As downsizing proceeds, the Committee believes that there 
will be opportunities for savings in rental payments through 
consolidation of activities and by reconfiguring existing 
space. While savings may occur over time from these changes, 
there may be a need to cover up-front costs to fund 
modifications, temporary swing space during renovations, moving 
expenses, and other costs. The Committee encourages the 
Department to take the steps necessary to achieve savings by 
consolidating and collocating offices and other appropriate 
means. In order to facilitate this process, the Committee 
intends that funds in this account not required for payment of 
rental costs shall be available to meet the up-front costs 
associated with collocations, relocations, and consolidations.

                       Hazardous Waste Management

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $15,700,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      25,000,000
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 1997 appropriation 
and $9,300,000 less than the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 1997 \1\................................     $30,529,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      25,258,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,948,000

\1\ Includes $783,000 for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization. The 1998 funds for this office are provided in a separate 
appropriation.

    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, 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; analyzing the impact of Governmentwide trends 
and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, and 
standards. In addition, departmental administration engages in 
strategic planning and evaluating 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.
    In fiscal year 1996, departmental administration 
reorganized its policy development and operational activities. 
The reorganization significantly altered the alignment of 
functions and activities within departmental administration. 
The previous organization structure divided the departmental 
administration function into specific program offices, such as 
personnel, operations, and civil rights enforcement. The new 
organization structure divides the function into policy, 
program operations, and support for other offices, and is 
intended to be more focused and responsive to customer needs.
    The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 required the establishment of 
a Chief Information Officer in major Federal agencies. Policy 
analysis and oversight activities for information resources 
management were reassigned to the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For departmental administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $24,948,000. This amount is $5,581,000 less 
than the 1997 appropriation and $310,000 less than the budget 
estimate.

                          USDA Central Charges

    The Committee is concerned with the continuing escalation 
of costs associated with departmental operations, such as the 
National Finance Center, computer center, telephone services, 
central supply services, et cetera. These costs are passed on 
to USDA agencies, which must underwrite these activities. 
However, these costs continue to escalate while agencies' 
budgets, in most cases, remain flat or suffer reductions. The 
Committee understands that the fiscal year 1998 charges run in 
excess of $200,000,000.
    The Committee expects the Department to maintain or reduce 
the fiscal year 1998 level of assessments for these centralized 
activities. The Committee also directs that the Department 
provide a detailed report by line item on the activities and 
associated costs assessed USDA agencies and offices for these 
services for each of fiscal years 1996-98. The Committee 
expects these costs and activities to be fully reflected, by 
agency, in the Department's explanatory notes accompanying the 
fiscal year 1999 budget.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $3,668,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       3,714,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,668,000

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

                       COMMITTEE 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 1997 level and 
$46,000 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 
following table indicates the specific amounts provided by the 
Committee:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................  $101,000
Agricultural Marketing Service................................   176,000
Agricultural Research Service.................................   129,000
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service..   120,000
Farm Service Agency...........................................   355,000
Food and Consumer Service.....................................   270,000
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................   309,000
Foreign Agricultural Service..................................   188,000
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................   148,000
Rural Business-Cooperative Service............................    52,000
Rural Housing Service.........................................   251,000
Rural Utilities Service.......................................   142,000
Headquarters..................................................   957,000
Intergovernmental affairs.....................................   470,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 3,668,000

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $8,138,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       8,279,000
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 
1997 appropriation and $141,000 less than the budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $63,028,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      65,259,000
Committee recommendation................................      63,728,000

    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 or 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 $63,728,000. This is $1,531,000 
less than the budget request and $700,000 more than the 1997 
appropriation. Included in the Committee's recommendation is 
the additional funding requested to help meet the increased 
cost of law enforcement retirement benefits under the Federal 
Employees Retirement System.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $27,749,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      29,449,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,098,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $29,098,000. This amount is 
$351,000 less than the budget request and $1,349,000 more than 
the 1997 appropriation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the increased 
funding requested to enable the Office to maintain current 
staff to provide adequate legal support for USDA programs.

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

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $540,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         547,000
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 $7,000 less than the 
budget request and the same as the 1997 level.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $53,109,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      54,310,000
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, and 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 $1,201,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1997 appropriation.
    The Committee encourages the Department to consider the 
relationship between the core analytical program of the 
Economic Research Service and the short-term and longer-run 
needs of other USDA program agencies, including the 
circumstances under which reimbursement to the Economic 
Research Service would be appropriate.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $100,221,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     119,877,000
Committee recommendation................................     118,048,000

    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 1998 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 1992 
to consolidate the activities of the two 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 1998 is the fourth year and 
the peak year of the 6-year funding cycle for the census. The 
next agricultural census will be conducted in January 1998. 
During this year, census questionnaires are prepared, labeled, 
and mailed. Data are collected, edited, tabulated, and reviewed 
for approximately 2.5 million report forms.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $118,048,000. This 
amount is $17,827,000 more than the 1997 appropriation and 
$1,829,000 less than the budget estimate.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $36,327,000 for the 
census of agriculture, and assumes the savings identified in 
the budget in NASS list frame development and maintenance costs 
due to efficiencies gained from NASS conducting the census.

                     Agricultural Research Service

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $716,826,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     726,797,000
Committee recommendation................................     738,000,000

    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 $738,000,000. This is 
$21,174,000 more than the 1997 level and $11,203,000 more than 
the budget request.
    The budget requests a number of funding increases to 
address high priority, critical research needs. Of the 
increases requested, the Committee approves the following: 
$4,000,000 for research on food safety, of which $250,000 is 
for apple-specific E. coli research to be carried out at the 
Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA; $3,000,000 for 
integrated pest management research, including the full amount 
requested for augmentative and biologically based IPM in field, 
horticultural, and vegetable crops and for host-plant 
resistance and pest management strategies; $1,000,000 for 
grazing lands utilization and conservation research, $250,000 
of which is for research to be carried out at the ARS Pasture 
Center, Logan, UT; $5,000,000 for research on emerging diseases 
and exotic pests, of which $500,000 is for fusarium head blight 
research at the Cereal Rust Laboratory, St. Paul, MN, and 
$500,000 is for research to improve resistance of wheat 
varieties to karnal bunt at Manhattan, KS; $1,250,000 for the 
Everglades initiative, of which $1,000,000 is for research on 
the biocontrol of melaleuca and other exotic pests to be 
carried out at Fort Lauderdale, FL, and $250,000 is to fund a 
hydrologist to work with Corps of Engineers on the south 
Florida everglades restoration project; $5,000,000 for the 
survey of food intakes by infants and children; $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 centers proposed to conduct this work; 
and $1,500,000 for genetics resources. Of the $1,500,000 
provided by the Committee for critical plant genetics 
resources, the Committee directs the implementation of these 
funds at the proposed laboratories located at Fort Collins, CO, 
Beltsville, MD, and Fresno, CA, in the amount of $250,000 each; 
includes funding to support clonal repositories and 
introduction stations as follows: Hilo, HI, Riverside, CA, 
Davis, CA, and Corvallis, OR, $50,000 each; College Station, 
TX, $100,000; Ames, IA, $200,000; and Pullman, WA, $250,000.
    The Committee notes that the $5,000,000 made available for 
the USDA food survey of food consumption patterns by infants 
and children is to provide information required by the USDA and 
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and is in response to 
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The Committee directs 
that the full amount provided be used to meet the costs 
associated with the survey.
    The Committee does not concur with the proposed closure of 
ARS laboratories and worksites and continues funding at the 
fiscal year 1997 levels for the Mandan, ND; Prosser, WA; Orono, 
ME; and Brawley, CA, ARS locations. The Federal Agricultural 
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act calls for a strategic 
planning task force to review all USDA research facilities. The 
Committee believes that all ARS facilities should remain open, 
funded, and fully staffed until this review is complete. 
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that the weed scientist 
at the ARS Prosser station has resigned due to the 
administration's proposal to close the Prosser, WA, station. 
The Committee directs the ARS to immediately refill this and 
any other positions which have been vacated due to the budget 
proposal to close these locations to prevent disruptions in the 
research work carried out at Prosser, Mandan, Brawley, and 
Orono.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,805,400 of the 
requested savings from project terminations proposed in the 
President's budget, as well as the general reductions and 
administrative efficiency savings identified in the budget 
request. The Committee agrees with the $550,000 in cost 
reductions in headquarters administration and management 
staffs. The Committee recognizes the agency's effort to 
consolidate, streamline, and improve its research support 
services and expects the agency to continue in those cost-
cutting measures at the Washington, DC, and surrounding 
metropolitan area complex. In addition, the Committee assumes 
further savings of $1,000,000 through the termination of base 
funding for evaluation studies. These savings are to be 
redirected to those research areas recommended to receive 
increased funding by the Committee.
    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. 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 bill are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Appalachian fruit research.--The Committee is aware of 
progress at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in 
developing multispectral imaging technology to electronically 
grade apples. The Committee directs the ARS to continue its 
support for the project at this facility.
    Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal 
year 1997 level at the Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation 
Laboratory to initiate research relating to the effect of 
timber management and accelerated harvesting on forest 
biosystems.
    Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase its 
research on alternatives to pesticides and improving 
postharvest technologies for apples.
    Arctic germplasm repository.--The Congress and the 
administration recognize the importance of genetic resources 
and the need to preserve plant germplasm. The Committee 
provides $750,000 to ARS to assist Alaska in support of arctic 
germplasm. The Alaska Plant Materials Center serves the 
Nation's interest in germplasm preservation and also supports 
the development of new markets for native plant species.
    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 1997 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 Midsouth research unit 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 
1997 and budget request levels.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corp. [BRDC].--The 
Committee expects the agency to support the Corporation's 
research at the same level as in fiscal year 1997.
    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 
Mississsippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology 
and supports the expansion of the program to include other 
foods.
    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 virus is spreading throughout citrus-growing 
areas in the United States. The Committee recommends continued 
research on this critical citrus disease.
    Citrus tristeza virus and brown citrus aphid.--The National 
Citrus Research Council has issued a research needs document 
entitled ``A Cooperative National Citrus Research Initiative to 
Control Citrus Tristeza Virus and Brown Citrus Aphid.'' ARS is 
to report to the Committee by December 31, 1997, on how it is 
utilizing its funding to address the most immediate needs 
established in this document and the additional funding 
required to comprehensively address this critical citrus 
disease complex.
    Club wheat breeding.--The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 1997 level for the ARS Pacific 
Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.
    Cool and cold water aquaculture.--Cool and cold water 
aquaculture production is expanding rapidly across the Nation. 
To ensure that risks associated with the long-term stability of 
the industry are reduced, it is imperative that the research 
objectives of the National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture are implemented expeditiously. The Committee 
provides $250,000 to initiate the program for the National 
Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at the Department of 
the Interior's Leetown Science Center, where the national 
aquaculture center will be collocated.
    Cotton genetics.--The Committee recognizes the urgency to 
develop high yielding cotton germplasm and provides an 
additional $250,000 for research conducted by ARS at 
Stoneville, MS, and directs the agency to fill the cotton 
geneticist position.
    Corn genome research.--The Committee understands that the 
ARS is currently conducting corn genome research and that 
efforts are underway for a major plant genome initiative. The 
Committee expects the ARS to improve its current corn genome 
research efforts as may be necessary to ensure that ARS corn 
genome research is directed, coordinated, and designed to 
complement national or interagency plant genome initiatives.
    Corn germplasm research.--The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 1997 level for the special corn 
germplasm research program. The program holds significant 
promise for improving the genetic base of U.S. corn hybrids to 
improve yield prospects and resistance to insect, disease, and 
weather-related problems.
    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 to be operated cooperatively by the University of 
Missouri and the University of Arkansas, the Committee 
recommends $198,000, the same as the budget request. 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 $250,000 to increase scientific support for research 
on preventing infectious diseases in warmwater fish carried out 
at the ARS Fish Disease and Parasite Research Laboratory at 
Auburn, AL.
    Fish Farming Experiment Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 1997 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.
    Fruit fly.--The Committee supports continued funding by ARS 
to provide $298,000 to the Hawaii Institute of Tropical 
Agriculture and Human Resources to develop and implement a 
program to address control of the papaya ringspot virus; and 
$298,000 to the Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and 
Human Resources to establish nematode resistance in commercial 
pineapple cultivars.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
1997 level of $275,100 for the University of Hawaii Institute 
of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for the 
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 
important work carried out at these two facilities. The 
Committee provides funding at the budget request levels for the 
Yakima and Wenatchee ARS facilities.
    Ginning research.--The Committee expects the Department to 
provide adequate funding for ginning research at the three 
laboratories in Mesilla Park, NM; Stoneville, MS; and Lubbock, 
TX.
    Grain legume research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of a grain legume genetics research position at 
Washington State University in Pullman, WA, and provides 
$250,000 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 on site 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.
    Hawaiian Agriculture Research Center [HARC].--The Committee 
provides $950,000, the same as the fiscal year 1997 level, for 
the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center [HARC], formerly called 
the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Experiment Station. 
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 place increased emphasis supporting 
the expansion of new crops and products to complement sugarcane 
production.
    Honeybee research.--Honeybees pollinate more than one-third 
of crops produced in the United States and it is essential that 
this bee population be maintained. The Committee is aware of 
the devastation to the domestic and wild honeybee population 
caused by parasitic mites. To increase ARS's research effort on 
parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees, the Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 1997 
level for additional scientists at the ARS Bee Laboratory in 
Weslaco, TX.
    Hops.--The Committee recognizes the outstanding increase in 
production of the U.S. hops industry, which has taken the lead 
in worldwide production, and of Washington State which produces 
75 percent of the total U.S. crop. Included in the 
recommendation is $388,000, the same as the fiscal year 1997 
and budget request levels, to continue hops research in the 
Pacific Northwest.
    Integrated farming systems.--The Committee provides 
$500,000, the same as the fiscal year 1997 and budget request 
levels, to continue integrated crop and livestock production 
systems research at the ARS Dairy Forage Center, Madison, WI. 
The Committee expects all of the agency's integrated farming 
systems projects to be implemented in partnership with farmers, 
nongovernmental organizations, and, where appropriate, other 
scientists and educators; to be interdisciplinary; to include 
biological, physical, and social sciences; and, to the maximum 
extent possible, to include animal as well as crop production.
    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 notes that this project 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 1997 level for the cooperative agreement between 
ARS and Mississippi State University to further kenaf research 
and product development efforts.
    Meadowfoam.--The Committee urges the ARS to continue to 
fund needed research for meadowfoam, a product whose oil seed 
is currently being used for a number of purposes in the 
cosmetic and personal care industries. Seed oil research is 
currently being conducted at the ARS facility in Peoria, IL, 
and the seed cultivar is being developed at Oregon State 
University in Corvallis, OR.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides $14,580,000, the 
same as the budget request, 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 recommends that the ARS 
continue funding at the fiscal year 1997 level for the Hawaii 
Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to 
develop environmentally safe methods to control pests prominent 
in small scale farms in tropical and subtropical agricultural 
systems.
    National Center for Agricultural Law Research and 
Information.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1997 level for the National Center for Agricultural 
Law Research and Information at the Leflar School of Law in 
Fayetteville, AR.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1997 level, the same as the budget 
request, 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.
    National Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center.--The 
Committee provides an additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 
1997 level to continue to meet the objectives outlined in the 
original USDA plan for the National Warmwater Aquaculture 
Research Center at Stoneville, MS.
    Natural products.--The Committee provides an additional 
$1,000,000 for the ARS to initiate a cooperative agreement with 
the University of Mississippi for pharmaceutical research in 
support of research on natural products.
    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, stem runoff and soil erosion, and 
improve water quality and conservation, the nursery industry is 
playing an expanding and significant environmental and research 
role. The Committee encourages the 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 1997 level of funding for 
the ARS Corvallis station.
    Peanut research.--The Committee continues funding at the 
fiscal year 1997 level to provide the minimum level of funding 
required to support two scientists for the ARS peanut research 
unit at Stillwater, OK. The plant pathology, breeding, and 
physiology research conducted by this unit is of benefit to the 
entire Southwestern U.S. peanut industry.
    Pear thrips.--The Committee recognizes the value of 
collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to 
develop controls for pear thrips and continues funding at the 
fiscal year 1997 level. ARS application of project funds for 
overhead expenses are not to exceed 10 percent of the amount 
appropriated for the project.
    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 encourages ARS to provide continued funding to 
support the Poisonous Plant Laboratory to enable it to continue 
current research projects, including continuing chemistry 
research support.
    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 funding at the 
fiscal year 1997 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 1997 level the following areas of 
research: Postharvest technologies to improve flavor quality of 
food crops ($357,600), postharvest research on vegetable oils 
for industrial use ($681,900), research on postharvest quality 
of potatoes and tomatoes ($398,900), development of food and 
industrial products from bacterial sugars ($324,200), 
biopolymers from agricultural commodities for industrial 
applications ($282,500), and biological control of Yellow 
Starthistle on rangelands ($88,200), Albany, CA; research on 
ground water management for crop production ($245,700), Fresno/
Parlier, CA; research on control of Formosan termites 
($144,100), Gainsville, FL; research on aquaculture production 
efficiency ($1,612,400), Hilo, HI; biotechnology techniques to 
enhance oat production efficiency ($160,700), Aberdeen, ID; 
utilization research to develop new uses for corn ($161,700), 
developing postharvest uses of plant proteins ($577,900), 
genetic engineering of rumen bacteria to improve animal feed 
efficiency ($490,800), Peoria, IL; production efficiency 
research on forage crops ($171,000), research on soybean 
genetic improvement ($178,900), Ames, IA; alfalfa and wheat 
genetics research ($250,000), Manhattan, KS; biotechnology 
research on sugarcane ($400,000), New Orleans, LA; research on 
lyme disease in deer ticks, including extramural research in 
New York and Connecticut ($175,200), remote sensing 
technologies for crop production ($206,100), research on 
postharvest quality of apples ($378,600), tissue culture 
research on small fruit crops ($237,900), National Turfgrass 
Evaluation Program ($55,300), and postharvest technologies for 
food quality of fruits and vegetables ($454,000), Beltsville, 
MD; engineering research to improve harvesting and handling of 
vegetable crops ($222,200) and research to improve the 
efficiency of dairy and forage production ($170,800), East 
Lansing, MI; research on the genetic improvement of wild rice 
($147,000), St. Paul, MN; agronomic and economic evaluation of 
kenaf as a field crop ($491,500), Stoneville, MS; research on 
watershed hydrology, Columbia, MO ($393,200); research on swine 
nutrition and growth ($208,400), Clay Center, NE; research on 
sorghum virus diseases ($143,100), Lincoln, NE; research on 
control of pear thrips on maple trees in Vermont ($50,000), 
Ithaca, NY; enhance peanut flavor quality through genetics 
research ($285,800), postharvest quality of processed 
sweetpotato ($217,200), evaluation of warm climate forage crops 
for sustainable agriculture ($374,200), Raleigh, NC; research 
on soybean genetics ($210,100), Wooster, OH; research on peanut 
germplasm improvement ($150,000), Stillwater, OK; 
characterization of environment and nutritional induced 
cytokinin changes in wheat ($214,800), partitioning of 
photosynthate ($175,800), onfarm utilization of grass/straw 
residues ($215,200), and Northwest small fruit research 
($325,000), Corvallis, OR; research to develop value-added 
products from fruit and vegetable processing wastes ($691,500), 
Wyndmoor, PA; Northwest club wheat genetics ($350,000), 
Pullman, WA; and animal health consortium research, ($919,800) 
Washington, DC.
    Poultry disease research.--Poult enteritis and mortality 
syndrome [PEMS] continues to pose a severe threat to turkey 
producers. It has cost the industry almost $100,000,000 since 
1991. North Carolina has been hit the hardest, where 1996 
losses are estimated to have exceeded $60,000,000, but 
outbreaks have also been reported in Arkansas, Georgia, 
Indiana, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia. The disease is 
transmittable and infectious, generally striking poults between 
7 and 28 days of age, and its origins and causes still remain 
unknown. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 1997 level for the ARS Southeast Poultry 
Research Laboratory in Athens, GA, to increase its contribution 
to the cooperative research effort to combat this disease.
    Reproductive efficiency of beef cattle.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the animal production research 
carried out at the Fort Keough Laboratory, Miles City, MT. An 
increase of $250,000 from the fiscal year 1997 level is 
provided for an animal physiologist position at this facility.
    Rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,050,000 from the fiscal year 1997 level for additional 
staffing at the Rice Germplasm Laboratory, Stuttgart, AR.
    Rural geriatric nutrition research.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 1997 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.
    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 1997 
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 1997 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 1997 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.
    Small grains plant pathologist, Raleigh, NC.--The Committee 
is aware of the need to expand research in small grains 
pathology. This has become even more critical given the threat 
of head scab to much of the eastern wheat crop and the presence 
of karnal bunt. The Committee provides an additional $250,000 
from the fiscal year 1997 level for ARS to establish a small 
grains pathologist research position at Raleigh, NC.
    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 1997 
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, and Stoneville, 
MS, aimed at increasing the productivity and profitability of 
soybean production and processing. The Committee expects ARS to 
continue both of the programs at not less than the current 
fiscal year 1997 funding levels.
    Subterranean termite.--The Committee recognizes the 
substantial damage to forests and structures caused by 
subterranean termites in tropical and subtropical regions of 
the United States. The Committee further recognizes the need to 
devise effective termite control methods that do not endanger 
public health and safety and the natural environment. The 
Committee provides $144,100 for the ARS to continue the termite 
research work in Hawaii at the fiscal year 1997 level.
    Sugarcane biotechnology research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of furthering the science of molecular 
techniques in sugarcane. By mapping useful genes into sugarcane 
germplasm, 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 $600,000, an increase of 
$200,000 from the fiscal year 1997 funding level. The Committee 
expects ARS to collaborate with the American Sugar Cane League 
in efforts to coordinate research with other commodity-based 
biotechnology research.
    Sweet potato whitefly.--The sweet potato whitefly has 
caused 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.
    Tropical aquaculture research.--The Committee supports 
tropical aquaculture as a way to enhance the competitiveness of 
the U.S. aquaculture industry and in creating long-term 
sustainable employment of human and marine resources. The 
Committee further recognizes the unique scientific, 
environmental, and geographical conditions found only in 
Hawaii. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1997 
level of $1,612,400 for the aquaculture productivity research 
and the requirements and sources of nutrients for marine shrimp 
projects in Hawaii.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to assess 
the feasibility of expanding its mission in Hawaii to establish 
a U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center on the island 
of Hawaii. The Center should 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. It also should 
address the relationship of this center to other Government 
agencies, the University of Hawaii, the University of Guam, and 
similar institutions. This report should be submitted to the 
Committee by January 30, 1998.
    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. Additional resources would help address needs in 
rootstock development, variety/clone development, wine 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 Midsouth 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.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $69,100,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      59,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,100,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,100,000. This 
is $9,800,000 more than the budget estimate and the same as the 
1997 appropriation. The Committee's specific recommendations 
are indicated in the following table:

                      ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES                      
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year                
      State and facility            1997     1998 budget     Committee  
                                  enacted      estimate   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:                                                             
    U.S. Horticultural Crop                                             
     and Water Management                                               
     Research Laboratory,                                               
     Parlier..................  ...........       23,400         23,400 
    Western Regional Research                                           
     Center, Albany...........        4,000  ...........  ..............
Florida:                                                                
    Horticultural Research                                              
     Laboratory, Fort Pierce..       27,000  ...........  ..............
    Melaleuca research and                                              
     quarantine facility, Fort                                          
     Lauderdale...............  ...........        4,000  ..............
France: European Biological                                             
 Control Laboratory...........  ...........        3,400          3,400 
Illinois:                                                               
    National Center for                                                 
     Agricultural Utilization                                           
     Research, Peoria.........        1,500        8,000          3,370 
    Ethanol Pilot Plant.......        1,500  ...........  ..............
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing                                            
 Research Laboratory,                                                   
 Manhattan....................          500  ...........  ..............
Louisiana: Southern Regional                                            
 Research Center, New Orleans.  ...........        1,100          1,100 
Maryland:                                                               
    Agricultural Research                                               
     Center, Beltsville.......        4,500        3,200          3,200 
    National Agricultural                                               
     Library, Beltsville......  ...........        6,000          2,500 
Mississippi:                                                            
    Biocontrol and Insect                                               
     Rearing Laboratory,                                                
     Stoneville...............  ...........  ...........            900 
    National Center for                                                 
     Natural Products, Oxford.  ...........  ...........          7,000 
Montana: Pest quarantine and                                            
 integrated pest management                                             
 facility, Sidney.............  ...........  ...........            606 
New York: Plum Island Animal                                            
 Disease Center, Greenport....        5,000        5,000          2,000 
North Dakota: Human Nutrition                                           
 Research Center, Grand Forks.  ...........  ...........          5,000 
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional                                          
 Research Center, Philadelphia        4,000        5,200          5,200 
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable                                          
 Laboratory, Charleston.......        3,000  ...........          4,824 
Texas:                                                                  
    Plant Stress and Water                                              
     Conservation Laboratory,                                           
     Lub-  bock...............        8,100  ...........  ..............
    Subtropical Agricultural                                            
     Research Laboratory,                                               
     Weslaco..................        4,000  ...........  ..............
Utah: Poisonous Plant                                                   
 Laboratory, Logan............  ...........  ...........            600 
West Virginia: National Center                                          
 for Cool and Cold Water                                                
 Aquaculture, Leetown.........        6,000  ...........          6,000 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................       69,100       59,300         69,100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is aware that the Grand Forks Human Nutrition 
Center in North Dakota sustained severe damage from flooding 
and has provided $5,000,000 for the repair and reconstruction 
of this facility. The Department is to use any excess funds to 
restore funds diverted to the repair of this facility in fiscal 
year 1997 from other repair and maintenance projects.
    The Committee has not approved ARS construction funding 
requested in the budget for the Melaleuca research and 
quarantine facility in Florida. Planning and design work for 
this facility has been funded and undertaken by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. The Committee supports the importance of 
this facility to the restoration of the south Florida 
ecosystem. However, the Committee believes funds for 
construction of the facility should be provided to the Corps of 
Engineers to ensure the continuity of design and construction 
of this project.
    In its report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 bill, the 
Committee requested a summary of the capabilities of ARS to 
meet present and future needs for insect rearing. ARS indicated 
to the Committee that one of the primary factors limiting the 
development of new biologically based technologies (biological 
control, sterile insect release, et cetera) is its lack of 
ability to mass produce high quality and effective agents at 
acceptable costs. To eliminate this constraint, ARS proposes 
that two old and inadequate facilities in Mississippi be 
combined into a single new facility at Stoneville, MS. The 
proposed new 50,000 square foot facility will include both 
developmental laboratories and a pilot plant for scaleup 
production of organisms of commercial value. The Committee 
provides $900,000 for planning and design work on this 
facility.
    The Committee continues support for the National Center for 
Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture dedicated to promote research 
related to health, genetics, and engineering to improve 
production efficiencies and provides $6,000,000 to complete the 
construction of this facility. The Committee also provides 
funds to complete construction of the U.S. Horticultural Crop 
and Water Management Research Laboratory and the European 
Biological Control Laboratory.
    A scheduled maintenance plan has not been developed for the 
17-year-old Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Research 
Laboratory, which includes sensitive scientific equipment and 
instrumentation. Without a scheduled maintenance plan, the 
Committee is concerned that aging equipment and building 
infrastructure will fail simultaneously, jeopardizing research 
and overextending budgeted maintenance funds. The Committee 
expects the ARS to develop and implement a scheduled 
maintenance plan for the facility.

      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, 1997....................................    $421,504,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     422,342,000
Committee recommendation................................     427,526,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States for the 
purpose of conducting agricultural research as authorized by 
the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the 
Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2), as amended (7 
U.S.C. 450i); and the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (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 in the conduct of 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 $427,526,000. This amount is $6,022,000 more than 
the 1997 appropriation and $5,184,000 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 
                                      1997      1998 budget   recommen- 
                                 appropriation                  dation  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act.......       168,734      168,734      168,734 
Cooperative forestry research                                           
 (McIntire-Stennis)............        20,497       20,497       20,497 
Payments to 1890 colleges and                                           
 Tuskegee......................        27,735       27,735       27,735 
Special research grants (Public                                         
 Law 89-106):                                                           
    Aflatoxin (Illinois).......           113   ...........         113 
    Agriculture-based                                                   
     industrial lubricants                                              
     (Iowa)....................  .............  ...........         250 
    Agricultural                                                        
     diversification (Hawaii)..           131   ...........         131 
    Alliance for food                                                   
     protection (Nebraska,                                              
     Georgia)..................           300   ...........         300 
    Alternative crops (North                                            
     Dakota)...................           550   ...........         550 
    Alternative crops for arid                                          
     lands (Texas).............            85   ...........  ...........
    Alternative marine and                                              
     fresh water species                                                
     (Mississippi).............           308   ...........         308 
    Alternative salmon products                                         
     (Alaska)..................  .............  ...........         500 
    Animal science food safety                                          
     consortium (Arkansas,                                              
     Iowa, Kansas).............         1,690   ...........       1,690 
    Apple fireblight (Michigan,                                         
     New York).................           325   ...........         325 
    Aquaculture (Illinois).....           169   ...........         158 
    Aquaculture (Louisiana)....           330   ...........         330 
    Aquaculture (Mississippi)..           592   ...........         642 
    Aquaculture (North                                                  
     Carolina).................           150   ...........  ...........
    Aquaculture product and                                             
     marketing development                                              
     (West Virginia)...........  .............  ...........         750 
    Babcock Institute                                                   
     (Wisconsin)...............           312   ...........         312 
    Binational agricultural                                             
     research and development                                           
     fund (United States-                                               
     Israel)...................         2,000        2,500        2,000 
    Biodiesel research                                                  
     (Missouri)................           152   ...........         152 
    Biotechnology (Oregon).....           250   ...........  ...........
    Broom snakeweed (New                                                
     Mexico)...................           175   ...........         175 
    Canola (Kansas)............            85   ...........          85 
    Center for Animal Health                                            
     and Productivity                                                   
     (Pennsylvania)............           113   ...........  ...........
    Center for Innovative Food                                          
     Technology (Ohio).........           181   ...........  ...........
    Center for Rural Studies                                            
     (Vermont).................            32   ...........          34 
    Chesapeake Bay aquaculture.           370   ...........         370 
    Coastal cultivars (Georgia)           200   ...........         200 
    Competitiveness of                                                  
     agricultural products                                              
     (Washington)..............           677   ...........         677 
    Cool season legume research                                         
     (Idaho, Washington).......           329   ...........         329 
    Cotton research (Texas)....  .............  ...........         300 
    Cranberry/blueberry disease                                         
     and breeding (New Jersey).           220   ...........         220 
    Dairy (Alaska).............  .............  ...........         250 
    Dairy and meat goat                                                 
     research (Texas)..........            63   ...........          63 
    Delta rural revitalization                                          
     (Mississippi).............           148   ...........         148 
    Drought mitigation                                                  
     (Nebraska)................           200   ...........  ...........
    Environmental research (New                                         
     York).....................           486   ...........  ...........
    Environmental risk factors--                                        
     cancer (New York).........           100   ...........  ...........
    Expanded wheat pasture                                              
     (Oklahoma)................           285   ...........         285 
    Farm and rural business                                             
     finance (Arkansas,                                                 
     Illinois).................           106   ...........         106 
    Feed barley for rangeland                                           
     cattle (Montana)..........           500   ...........         600 
    Floriculture (Hawaii)......           250   ...........         250 
    Food and Agriculture Policy                                         
     Institute (Iowa, Missouri)           800   ...........         800 
    Food irradiation (Iowa)....           201   ...........         201 
    Food Marketing Policy                                               
     Center (Connecticut)......           332   ...........         332 
    Food Processing Center                                              
     (Nebraska)................            42   ...........  ...........
    Food safety initiative.....  .............       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..............         1,567        1,567        1,567 
    Global marketing support                                            
     service (Arkansas)........            92   ...........         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   ...........  ...........
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance                                          
     for Biotechnology.........         1,316   ...........       1,316 
    Improved dairy management                                           
     practices (Pennsylvania)..           296   ...........  ...........
    Improved fruit practices                                            
     (Michigan)................           445   ...........         445 
    Institute for Food Science                                          
     and Engineering (Arkansas)           750   ...........         950 
    Integrated production                                               
     systems (Oklahoma)........           161   ...........         161 
    International arid lands                                            
     consortium................           329   ...........         329 
    Iowa biotechnology                                                  
     consortium................         1,738   ...........       1,738 
    Jointed goatgrass                                                   
     (Washington)..............           296   ...........         296 
    Landscaping for water                                               
     quality (Georgia).........           300   ...........         300 
    Livestock and dairy policy                                          
     (New York, Texas).........           445   ...........         445 
    Lowbush blueberry research                                          
     (Maine)...................           220   ...........         220 
    Maple research (Vermont)...            84   ...........         100 
    Michigan biotechnology                                              
     consortium................           750   ...........         750 
    Midwest Advanced Food                                               
     Manufacturing Alliance....           423   ...........  ...........
    Midwest agricultural                                                
     products (Iowa)...........           592   ...........         592 
    Milk safety (Pennsylvania).           268   ...........         268 
    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   ...........  ...........
    North central biotechnology                                         
     initiative................         1,940   ...........  ...........
    Oil resources from desert                                           
     plants (New Mexico).......           175   ...........         175 
    Organic waste utilization                                           
     (New Mexico)..............           100   ...........  ...........
    Pasture and forage research                                         
     (Utah)....................           200   ...........         250 
    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)..............  .............  ...........         200 
    Poultry carcass recycling                                           
     (Alabama).................  .............  ...........         400 
    Postharvest rice straw                                              
     (California)..............           100   ...........  ...........
    Potato cultivars (Alaska)..           120   ...........  ...........
    Potato research............         1,214   ...........       1,214 
    Preharvest food safety                                              
     (Kansas)..................           212   ...........         212 
    Preservation and processing                                         
     research (Oklahoma).......           226   ...........         226 
    Red River corridor                                                  
     (Minnesota, North Dakota).           169   ...........  ...........
    Regional barley gene                                                
     mapping project...........           348   ...........         348 
    Regionalized implications                                           
     of farm programs                                                   
     (Missouri, Texas).........           294   ...........         294 
    Rice modeling (Arkansas)...           395   ...........         395 
    Rural development centers                                           
     (Pennsylvania, Iowa, North                                         
     Dakota, Mississippi,                                               
     Oregon)...................           423          423          423 
    Rural Policies Research                                             
     Institute (Nebraska,                                               
     Missouri,  Iowa)..........           644   ...........         644 
    Seafood and aquaculture                                             
     harvesting, processing,                                            
     and marketing                                                      
     (Mississippi).............           305   ...........         305 
    Small fruit research                                                
     (Oregon, Washington,                                               
     Idaho)....................           212   ...........         212 
    Southwest consortium for                                            
     plant genetics and water                                           
     resources.................           338   ...........         338 
    Soybean cyst nematode                                               
     (Missouri)................           303   ...........         500 
    Spatial technologies for                                            
     agriculture (Mississippi).           350   ...........         750 
    STEEP--water quality in                                             
     Northwest.................           500   ...........         500 
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     (Michigan)................           445   ...........         445 
    Sustainable agriculture and                                         
     natural resources                                                  
     (Pennsylvania)............            94   ...........          94 
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     systems (Nebraska)........            59   ...........          59 
    Sustainable pest management                                         
     for dryland wheat (Mon-                                            
     tana).....................           200   ...........         500 
    Swine waste management                                              
     (North Carolina)..........           215   ...........  ...........
    Tillage, silviculture,                                              
     waste management                                                   
     (Louisiana)...............           212   ...........         212 
    Tropical and subtropical...         2,724   ...........       2,724 
    Urban pests (Georgia)......            64   ...........          75 
    Viticulture consortium (New                                         
     York, California).........           500   ...........         500 
    Water conservation (Kansas)            79   ...........          79 
    Water management (Alabama).           170   ...........  ...........
    Water quality..............         2,757        2,757        2,757 
    Weed control (North Dakota)           423   ...........         423 
    Wheat genetic research                                              
     (Kansas)..................           176   ...........         176 
    Wood utilization (Oregon,                                           
     Mississippi, Minnesota,                                            
     North Carolina, Maine,                                             
     Michigan).................         3,536   ...........       3,628 
    Wool (Texas, Montana,                                               
     Wyoming)..................           212   ...........         212 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, special research                                           
       grants..................        49,767       10,051       47,525 
                                ========================================
Improved pest control:                                                  
    Integrated pest management.         2,731        8,000        2,731 
    Pesticide clearance (IR-4).         5,711       10,711        7,561 
    Pesticide impact assessment         1,327        1,327        1,327 
    Expert IPM decision support                                         
     system....................           177          300          177 
    Critical issues............           200          200          200 
    Emerging pest and disease                                           
     issues....................         1,623        4,200        1,623 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, improved pest                                              
       control.................        11,769       24,738       13,619 
                                ========================================
Competitive research grants:                                            
    Plant systems..............        36,044       47,000       38,100 
    Animal systems.............        23,104       29,500       25,154 
    Nutrition, food quality,                                            
     and health................         7,209       11,000        8,000 
    Natural resources and the                                           
     environment...............        17,194       27,000       18,094 
    Processes and new products.         6,755        9,000        6,755 
    Markets, trade, and policy.         3,897        6,500        3,897 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, competitive                                                
       research grants.........        94,203      130,000      100,000 
                                ========================================
Animal health and disease (sec.                                         
 1433).........................         4,775        4,775        4,775 
Critical Agricultural Materials                                         
 Act...........................           500   ...........         600 
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)         4,000        4,000        4,000 
Rangeland research grants (sec.                                         
 1480).........................           475   ...........  ...........
Alternative crops..............           650          650          550 
Sustainable agriculture........         8,000        8,000        8,000 
Capacity building grants.......         9,200        9,200        9,200 
Payments to the 1994                                                    
 institutions..................         1,450        1,450        1,450 
Graduate fellowship grants.....         3,000        3,000        3,000 
Institute challenge grants.....         4,000        4,350        4,350 
Multicultural scholars program.         1,000        1,000        1,000 
Hispanic education partnership                                          
 grants........................         1,500        1,500        1,500 
Federal administration:                                                 
    Agriculture development in                                          
     the American Pacific......           564   ...........         564 
    Alternative fuels                                                   
     characterization                                                   
     laboratory (North Da-                                              
     kota).....................           218   ...........         218 
    Animal waste management                                             
     (Oklahoma)................  .............  ...........         350 
    Center for Agricultural and                                         
     Rural Development (Iowa)..           355   ...........         355 
    Center for Hawaiian                                                 
     Nutrition (Maryland)......  .............  ...........         200 
    Center for North American                                           
     Studies (Texas)...........            87   ...........          87 
    Data information system....           400        1,000          850 
    Geographic information                                              
     system....................           844   ...........         844 
    Mariculture (North                                                  
     Carolina).................  .............  ...........         200 
    Mississippi Valley State                                            
     University................           583   ...........         583 
    National Education Center                                           
     for Agricultural Safety                                            
     (Iowa)....................           300   ...........  ...........
    Office of Extramural                                                
     Programs..................           310          310          310 
    Pay costs and FERS.........           833        1,002          925 
    Peer panels................           350          350          350 
    PM-10 study (Washington,                                            
     California)...............           873   ...........         873 
    Rural partnership                                                   
     (Nebraska)................           250   ...........  ...........
    Shrimp aquaculture (Hawaii,                                         
     Mississippi, Arizona,                                              
     Massachusetts, South                                               
     Carolina).................         3,354   ...........       3,354 
    Water quality (Illinois)...           492   ...........         492 
    Water quality (North                                                
     Dakota)...................           436   ...........         436 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, Federal                                                    
       administration..........        10,249        2,662       10,991 
                                ========================================
      Total, Cooperative State                                          
       Research, Education, and                                         
       Extension Service,                                               
       research and education                                           
       activities..............       421,504      422,342      427,526 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $46,525,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $642,000 provided for 
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $140,000 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. The Committee encourages the 
National Center for Physical Acoustics to utilize funds to 
cooperate with the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center in 
providing two sonar detection devices to allow the Center to 
advance its study of fish behavior.
    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 1997 and budget request levels, to support the 
regional aquaculture centers. The Committee encourages the 
Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center to study the demand for 
value-added fish products in the Northeast and the resources 
and facilities required to meet this demand.
    Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and recommends funding of $100,000,000.
    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 1997 
and budget request levels.
    Higher education.--The Committee recommends $9,850,000 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 $1,500,000 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 $10,991,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    Center for Human Nutrition (Maryland).--The Committee 
includes $200,000 for the Center for Human Nutrition in 
Baltimore, MD, for nutrition-related research that focuses on 
the prevention of cancer through diet and monitoring 
populations at risk for chronic nutrition-related illness.
    Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee 
recommends $844,000, the same as the fiscal year 1997 level. 
The Committee recommends the same amounts as in 1997 for each 
of the participating entities in Georgia, the Chesapeake Bay, 
Arkansas, 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.
    Mariculture (North Carolina).--The Committee provides 
$200,000 to support the mariculture program at the University 
of North Carolina at Wilmington. This research focuses on 
growth and survival rates of marine species best suited to 
commercial use. The program will conduct additional research 
toward repopulation of depleted fish stocks off the Atlantic 
coasts.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 1997....................................    ($4,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     (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 1997 level.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $61,591,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends no appropriations for buildings 
and facilities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, 
and Extension Service. This amount is the same as the budget 
estimate and $61,591,000 less than the 1997 level.

                          extension activities

Appropriations, 1997 \1\................................    $426,273,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     417,811,000
Committee recommendation................................     423,322,000

\1\ Includes $753,000 for the 1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University 
provided by Public Law 104-208.

    Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. 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 $423,322,000. This amount is $2,951,000 less 
than the amount provided for 1997 and $5,511,000 more than the 
budget estimate.
    The following table summarizes Committee action on 
extension activities:

       EXTENSION ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION      
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year                             
                                    1997     Fiscal year     Committee  
                                  enacted    1998 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and                                           
 3(c).........................      268,493      268,493        268,493 
Smith-Lever section 3(d):                                               
    Food safety...............        2,365        4,365          2,365 
    Youth at risk.............        9,554       11,700          9,554 
    Water quality.............       10,733        9,061          9,061 
    Food and nutrition                                                  
     education................       58,695       58,695         58,695 
    Pest management...........       10,783       15,000         10,783 
    Farm safety...............        2,855  ...........          2,855 
    Pesticide impact                                                    
     assessment...............        3,214        3,313          3,214 
    Rural development centers.          908          908            908 
    Indian reservation agents.        1,672        1,672          1,672 
    Sustainable agriculture...        3,309        3,309          3,309 
    Pesticide applicator                                                
     training.................  ...........        1,500  ..............
Renewable Resources Extension                                           
 Act..........................        3,192  ...........          3,192 
1890 colleges and Tuskegee....       25,090       25,090         25,090 
1890's facilities grants......        7,549        7,549          7,549 
Agricultural                                                            
 telecommunications...........        1,167  ...........          1,167 
Rural health and safety                                                 
 education....................        2,628  ...........          2,628 
Extension services at the 1994                                          
 institutions.................        2,000        2,000          2,000 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................      414,207      412,655        412,535 
                               =========================================
Federal administration and                                              
 special grants:                                                        
    General administration....        4,995        5,156          4,995 
    Beef producers improvement                                          
     (Arkansas)...............          197  ...........            197 
    Delta Teachers Academy....        3,850  ...........          3,850 
    Extension specialist                                                
     (Arkansas)...............           99  ...........             99 
    Extension specialist                                                
     (Mississippi)............           50  ...........             50 
    Income enhancement                                                  
     demonstration (Ohio).....          246  ...........  ..............
    Integrated cow/calf                                                 
     management (Iowa)........          345  ...........            300 
    National Center for                                                 
     Agriculture Safety (Iowa)      ( \1\ )  ...........            300 
    Pilot technology project                                            
     (Wisconsin)..............          163  ...........  ..............
    Pilot technology transfer                                           
     (Oklahoma and                                                      
     Mississippi).............          326  ...........            326 
    Range improvement (New                                              
     Mexico)..................          197  ...........            197 
    Rural Center for HIV/STD                                            
     Prevention (Indiana).....          246  ...........  ..............
    Rural development                                                   
     (Nebraska)...............          386  ...........  ..............
    Rural development (New                                              
     Mexico)..................          227  ...........            227 
    Rural development                                                   
     (Oklahoma)...............          296  ...........  ..............
    Rural rehabilitation                                                
     (Georgia)................          246  ...........            246 
    Wood biomass as an                                                  
     alternative farm product                                           
     (New York)...............          197  ...........  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Federal                                               
         administration.......       12,066        5,156         10,787 
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total, extension                                                
         activities...........      426,273      417,811        423,322 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded for fiscal year 1997 as CSREES Federal administration        
  research grant.                                                       


    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 1997 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 1997 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, 1997....................................        $618,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         625,000
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 1997 level and $7,000 less 
than the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, APHIS  
                                                           Appropriations       User fees        appropriations 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997...................................       $336,909,000  \1\ ($98,000,000)     ($434,909,000)
Budget estimate, 1998..................................        324,491,000  \2\ (100,000,000)      (424,491,000)
Committee recommendation...............................        337,183,000  \2\ (100,000,000)      (437,183,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include an increase of $37,300,000 in AQI user fee authority.                                      
\2\ Does not include $41,000,000 anticipated from FAIR Act direct appropriation.                                


    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 
$437,183,000. This is $2,274,000 more than the 1997 
appropriation and $12,692,000 more than the budget request.
    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                 
                                   1997     1998 budget     Committee   
                                 enacted      request    recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:                                             
    Agricultural quarantine                                             
     inspection..............       26,547       27,814         28,547  
    User fees \1\............       98,000      100,000        100,000  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, agricultural                                            
       quarantine inspection.      124,547      127,814        126,547  
                              ==========================================
    Cattle ticks.............        4,537        4,427          4,627  
    Foot-and-mouth disease...        3,991        3,803          3,991  
    Sanitary/phytosanitary                                              
     standards:                                                         
        Import-export                                                   
         inspection..........        6,847        6,815          6,847  
        International                                                   
         programs............        6,643        6,630          6,643  
    Fruit fly exclusion and                                             
     detection...............       21,161       20,970         21,161  
    Screwworm................       31,713       31,335         31,713  
    Tropical bont tick.......          452          444            452  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and                                                
       disease exclusion.....      199,891      202,238        201,981  
                              ==========================================
Plant and animal health                                                 
 monitoring:                                                            
    Animal health monitoring                                            
     and surveillance........       60,831       60,564         60,831  
    Animal and plant health                                             
     regulatory enforcement..        5,855        5,722          5,855  
    Pest detection...........        4,202        8,732          4,302  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, plant and                                               
       animal health                                                    
       monitoring............       70,888       75,018         70,988  
                              ==========================================
Pest and disease management                                             
 programs:                                                              
    Animal damage control                                               
     operations..............       26,967       23,713         26,967  
    Aquaculture..............          571          567            571  
    Biological control.......        6,290        6,275          6,290  
    Boll weevil..............       16,209        6,376         16,209  
    Brucellosis eradication..       21,661       19,818         21,661  
    Golden nematode..........          444          435            444  
    Gypsy moth...............        4,367        4,366          4,367  
    Imported fire ant........        1,000  ...........          1,000  
    Miscellaneous plant                                                 
     diseases................        1,516        1,533          1,516  
    Noxious weeds............          404          406            404  
    Pink bollworm............        1,069        1,048          1,069  
    Pseudorabies.............        4,518        4,481          4,518  
    Scrapie..................        2,967        2,931          2,967  
    Sweetpotato whitefly.....        1,888        1,877          1,888  
    Tuberculosis.............        4,948        4,920          4,948  
    Witchweed................        1,662        1,638          1,662  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and                                                
       disease management....       96,481       80,384         96,481  
                              ==========================================
Animal care:                                                            
    Animal welfare...........        9,185        9,175          9,185  
    Horse protection.........          360          353            760  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, animal care..        9,545        9,528          9,945  
                              ==========================================
Scientific and technical                                                
 services:                                                              
    Animal damage control                                               
     methods development.....       10,951        9,672         10,275  
    Biotechnology/                                                      
     environmental protection        8,132        8,139          8,132  
    Integrated systems                                                  
     acquisition.............        4,000        4,000          4,000  
    Plant methods development                                           
     laboratories............        5,048        5,102          5,048  
    Veterinary biologics.....       10,360       10,345         10,360  
    Veterinary diagnostics...       15,473       15,622         15,473  
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, scientific                                              
       and technical services       53,604       52,880         53,288  
                              ==========================================
Contingency fund.............        4,500        4,443          4,500  
                              ==========================================
      Total, salaries and                                               
       expenses..............      434,909      424,491        437,183  
                              ==========================================
Recap:                                                                  
    Appropriated.............      334,909      324,491        337,183  
    Agricultural quarantine                                             
     inspection user fees \1\       98,000      100,000        100,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An additional $37,300,000 in 1997 and $41,000,000 in 1998 is        
  anticipated from farm bill 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. Accordingly, the Committee has 
provided $100,000,000 from the AQI user fee account. The 
Department has estimated that an additional $41,000,000 will be 
collected and available as provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law 
104-127).
    The Committee recognizes the importance of protecting 
domestic agriculture in the continental United States from the 
introduction of pests while at the same time not disrupting the 
tourist traffic in Hawaii. In part, this is achieved by 
providing adequate airport inspections in Hawaii of passengers 
and cargo destined for the U.S. mainland. The Committee has 
provided an additional $200,000 above the 1997 level to support 
the addition of 21 full-time inspection positions to supplement 
existing resources devoted to agriculture quarantine inspection 
at Hawaii's direct departure and interline airports. The 
Committee urges APHIS to pursue cost-saving, innovative 
approaches, and hiring practices for preclearance baggage 
inspection.
    In addition to establishing treatment protocols, the 
Committee encourages the Department to actively seek 
alternative protocols that allow for the expansion of domestic 
markets for fresh agricultural products grown in Hawaii while 
minimizing the pest risks to mainland agriculture.
    Pest disease and exclusion.--The Committee is concerned 
with the erosion of APHIS' ability to prevent the illegal or 
inadvertent entry of tick-infested cattle across the Mexican 
border of Texas. The Committee has provided funds for the 
cattle ticks program to ensure that APHIS maintains current 
staffing levels.
    International programs.--The Committee encourages the 
agency to work with the Mexican/American Bi-National Committee 
on Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis to check areas of Mexico 
for eradication of cattle brucellosis and tuberculosis. This 
assistance is essential to prevent infection of areas in the 
United States where these diseases have been eradicated 
successfully.
    Import-export inspection.--The Committee understands that 
the Department is considering a proposal to close the animal 
inspection facilities in Derby Line, VT, and Champlain, NY. The 
Committee requests that USDA consider the cost savings which 
could be achieved at these stations by keeping both facilities 
open on an appointment-only basis 1 day a week. In addition, 
the Department should explore the possibility of utilizing 
Canada's new livestock inspection facility in Lacolle, Canada, 
in place of its current facility in Champlain.
    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 sponsor a 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 remains concerned that funding for the 
National Poultry Improvement Program has declined in recent 
years. The Committee indicated in the report accompanying the 
fiscal year 1997 act that it expected the agency to enhance 
funding for this activity. This has not occurred to date. The 
Committee directs the agency to restore funding for this 
program in fiscal year 1998.
    Pest detection.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
economic risk the recent discovery of Asian long-horned beetles 
in New York poses to maple trees in the Northeast. The 
Committee provides funding for APHIS to conduct a detection 
survey to prevent future infestations. The survey should 
include notification to all port personnel and increased 
monitoring of imported cargo made of heavy wood crating or 
blocking from China, Japan, or the Malaysian peninsula.
    The Committee supports current plans by the agency to 
provide assistance to producers who have suffered losses due to 
karnal bunt.
    Animal damage control.--Funding at the fiscal year 1997 
level is included to continue cattail management and blackbird 
control efforts in North and South Dakota and Louisiana.
    The Committee encourages cost sharing of control activities 
to the maximum extent possible in regard to resident wildlife 
control in all States.
    The Committee includes an additional $150,000 from the 
fiscal year 1997 level for the beaver damage control assistance 
program to further reduce beaver damages in the Delta National 
Forest and other areas in Mississippi.
    The Committee maintains funding at the fiscal year 1997 
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.
    The Committee provides the 1997 level of funding to 
continue depredation efforts on fish-eating birds. The 
Committee also directs animal damage control to work jointly 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate and 
implement population management strategies for fish-eating bird 
species at nesting, roosting, and wintering sites when 
depredating on commercial, sport, or forage fish in the mid-
South.
    Funding is continued at the fiscal year 1997 level for the 
Jack H. Berryman Institute of Wildlife Damage Management in 
Utah.
    The Committee provides an increase of $115,000 for the 
coyote control program for sheep operators in West Virginia. 
Predators have been the primary obstacle to sheep production in 
the State.
    The Committee is concerned about the spread of raccoon 
rabies in the Northeast and directs the agency to begin the 
elimination of the spread of rabies in this area within 
available funds for this purpose.
    The Committee provides an additional $455,000 from the 
fiscal year 1997 level for the Texas Oral Rabies Vaccination 
Program to halt the spread of the rabies virus.
    The U.S. Trade Representative is currently negotiating with 
Canada, Russia, and the European Community to develop an 
international standard for humane traps which would eliminate 
the need for the import ban of furs taken with steel leghold 
traps. The Committee provides $350,000 for APHIS to initiate 
the National Trap Testing Program to test a variety of trap 
types to determine the most humane design while maintaining 
efficiency.
    The Committee expects the Department to maintain the animal 
damage control office in Vermont at the fiscal year 1997 level.
    The Committee believes that nonlethal methods of control 
should be the practice of choice when appropriate.
    Avocados.--The Committee expects APHIS to provide an update 
on the protocol for importation of Mexican avocados. The 
Committee encourages APHIS to work with the U.S. avocado 
growers in implementing procedures to meet phytosanitary 
standards.
    Horse protection.--The Committee expects the Secretary to 
issue regulations expeditiously for the Commercial 
Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act. The Committee has 
included funding for enforcement and expects the Secretary to 
enforce this program.
    Silverleaf whitefly.--The Committee encourages APHIS to 
continue its work on the silverleaf whitefly to develop an 
effective control program.
    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 contingency funds.
    Imported fire ants.--The Committee provides funds at the 
fiscal year 1997 level for the continuation of the work that is 
being conducted at the University of Arkansas at Monticello and 
to coordinate such activities with the cooperative extension 
abatement program.
    Noxious weeds.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$50,000 for APHIS to initiate a demonstration project on kudzu 
and includes language in the bill to designate kudzu as a 
noxious weed.
    The Committee expects APHIS to continue funding for 
eradication of orbanche ramosa in Texas.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $3,200,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       7,200,000
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 $1,000,000 more than the 1997 
level and $3,000,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $1,000,000 for 
APHIS to plan, develop, and construct a quarantine facility in 
Montana in which to hold and test bison leaving the confines of 
Yellowstone National Park. The State of Montana is responsible 
for providing the land necessary for the facility.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $38,507,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      49,786,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,627,000

    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 
$49,627,000. This amount is $11,120,000 more than the 1997 
appropriation and $159,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes all savings in 
Federal employment costs identified in the budget request as a 
result of streamlining efforts, and the increased funding 
requested to operate the Pesticide Data Program and to continue 
implementation of the Organic Certification Program. The 
Committee also provides an increase of $1,050,000 for AMS 
marketing assistance to Alaska.
    The Committee is concerned by the delay in the promulgation 
of standards necessary for the full implementation of the 
Organic Certification Program and strongly urges the Department 
to publish the final rule as soon as possible.

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 1997........................................   ($59,012,000)
Budget limitation, 1998.................................    (59,521,000)
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 $509,000 more than the 1997 level and the same 
as the budget request.

          funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply

                              (section 32)

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $10,576,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      10,690,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,690,000

    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 Consumer 
Service have been provided in recent appropriation acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1996-98:

                ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 1996-98               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--                   
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997 current      1998 current  
                                                               1996 actual        estimate          estimate    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts)............    $6,263,764,062    $5,923,376,725    $5,799,067,890
    Less rescission.......................................        -5,000,000  ................  ................
Less transfers:                                                                                                 
    Food and Consumer Service.............................    -5,597,858,000    -5,433,753,000    -5,151,391,000
    Commerce Department...................................       -72,893,162       -66,381,020       -66,381,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers....................................    -5,670,751,162    -5,500,134,020    -5,217,772,000
                                                           =====================================================
Budget authority..........................................       588,012,900       423,242,705       581,295,890
Unobligated balance available, start of year..............       235,129,235       300,000,000       152,711,705
Recoveries of prior-year obligations......................           739,082  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Available for obligation..................................       823,881,217       723,242,705       734,007,595
                                                           =====================================================
Less obligations:                                                                                               
    Commodity procurement:                                                                                      
        Child nutrition purchases.........................       399,084,074       400,000,000       400,000,000
        Emergency surplus removal.........................        56,171,527       139,900,000  ................
        Diversion payments................................  ................        11,000,000  ................
        Disaster relief...................................         1,167,904         2,900,000  ................
        Sunflower and cottonseed oil purchases............        23,900,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Total, commodity procurement..................       480,323,505       553,800,000       400,000,000
                                                           =====================================================
Administrative funds:                                                                                           
    Commodity Purchase Service............................         5,733,351         6,155,000         6,198,000
    Marketing agreements and orders.......................        10,016,377        10,576,000        10,690,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, administrative funds.........................        15,749,728        16,731,000        16,888,000
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, obligations..................................       496,073,233       570,531,000       416,888,000
                                                           =====================================================
    Carryout..............................................       327,807,984       152,711,705       317,119,595
    Return to Treasury....................................        27,807,984  ................        17,119,595
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Unobligated balance available, end of year..........       300,000,000       152,711,705       300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $10,690,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is the same as the 
budget estimate and $114,000 more than the 1997 amount.
    In fiscal year 1997, $13,700,000 of section 32 funding has 
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 canned pink 
salmon, pouched pink salmon, and salmon nuggets made from chum 
salmon and determine whether or not there is a surplus and 
continued low prices in fiscal year 1998. If there is surplus 
salmon and continued low prices in fiscal year 1998, the 
Committee encourages the Department to purchase surplus salmon.

                   payments to states and possessions

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $1,200,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       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 1997 appropriation.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $23,128,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      25,722,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,583,000

    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 $23,583,000. This amount is $2,139,000 less 
than the budget request and $455,000 more than the amount 
provided for 1997.
    The Committee's recommendation assumes the savings 
identified in the budget from Federal employment reductions due 
to streamlining and provides $700,000 of the increased funding 
requested for packer competition and industry structure.

                    inspection and weighing services

        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

Limitation, 1997........................................   ($43,207,000)
Budget limitation, 1998.................................    (43,092,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (43,092,000)

    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 $43,092,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the budget estimate and $115,000 less than the 1997 
amount.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $446,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         583,000
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 1997 and $137,000 less 
than the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $574,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     591,209,000
Committee recommendation................................     590,614,000

    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 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 $590,614,000. This amount is 
$16,614,000 more than the amount provided in 1997 and $595,000 
less than the budget request.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service:

        FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1997       1998 budget     Committee  
                                estimates      request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slaughter inspection........  $325,283,000  $335,863,000   $335,863,000 
Processing inspection.......   135,777,000   139,545,000    139,545,000 
Egg product inspection......    11,272,000    11,495,000     11,495,000 
Import/export inspection....    12,674,000    13,051,000     13,051,000 
Laboratory services.........    19,845,000    20,275,000     20,775,000 
Pathogen reduction program..    18,902,000    19,600,000     19,600,000 
Field automation and                                                    
 information management.....     8,525,000     8,525,000      7,400,000 
Grants to States............    41,728,000    42,855,000     42,885,000 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................   574,000,000   591,209,000    590,614,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendations include the full amount 
requested in the budget for the food safety initiative to 
reduce the risk of foodborne illness and to fully implement the 
hazard analysis and critical control points [HACCP] inspection 
system. The Committee remains in strong support of the new 
HACCP inspection system and expects the Department to 
expeditiously implement this system. The agency's target is for 
all HACCP regulatory reforms to be completed in 1999. The 
organoleptic inspection system is to be maintained until HACCP 
is fully in place. The Committee is opposed to mandating any 
food safety activities at the animal production site.
    The Committee has deferred funding for automated data 
processing and telecommunications technology pending the 
completion and review of the Departmentwide information systems 
technology architecture. The Committee is aware of the agency's 
ability to request a waiver for upgraded automated data 
processing and telecommunications technology. Should a waiver 
be granted, the Committee expects the agency to use the 
appropriated amount for field automation and information 
management only. However, the Committee feels strongly that the 
agency should honor the moratorium.
    The Committee remains concerned that the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service has not promulgated regulations governing 
the storage and transportation of shell eggs. Legislation 
enacted in 1991 mandates the promulgation of regulations on 
this issue with which the agency has not complied. It is the 
Committee's understanding that a rule could be published by the 
end of 1997. The Committee directs the agency to do so by 
December 31, 1997.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $572,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         580,000
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 1997 
appropriation and $8,000 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 the next 7 years 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.--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, 1997.....................................      $746,440,000      $209,780,000       $956,220,000
Budget estimate, 1998....................................       742,789,000       211,324,000        954,113,000
Committee recommendation.................................       700,659,000       211,265,000        911,924,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, the 
Committee recommends $911,924,000. This is $44,296,000 less 
than the 1997 level and $42,189,000 less than the budget 
request.
    The Committee is encouraged by the agency's effort to 
reduce its expenses to prevent an additional 500 Farm Service 
Agency field offices from being closed in fiscal year 1998, as 
proposed in the President's budget.
    In executing its current office streamlining, the Committee 
directs USDA to base any closure decisions on workload and 
complexity rather than geography and arbitrary distances 
between county offices.

                         state mediation grants

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for State mediation 
grants. This is the same as the amount provided in 1997 and 
$2,000,000 less than the budget request.

                        dairy indemnity program

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         550,000

    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 
$550,000. This is $450,000 more than the 1997 amount and the 
budget request. The additional amount provided by the Committee 
represents the Department's estimate of currently unfunded 
fiscal year 1997 claims under the program.

           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 
$2,940,653,000. This is $140,071,000 less than the 1997 level 
and $108,825,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee has continued 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 Consolidated Farm Service 
Agency recommended by the Committee, as compared to 1997, and 
the budget request:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS                                   
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee  
                                                                   1997 enacted     1998 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................................          50,000          30,828          60,000
    Guaranteed..................................................         550,000         400,000         400,000
Farm operating:                                                                                                 
    Direct \1\..................................................         445,071         450,000         495,000
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................       1,700,000       1,700,000       1,700,000
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................         200,000         200,000         200,000
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................           1,000           1,000           1,000
Emergency disaster..............................................          25,000          25,000          25,000
Boll weevil eradication loans...................................          34,653  ..............          34,653
Credit sales of acquired property...............................          25,000          25,000          25,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................       3,080,724       2,831,828       2,940,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated $50,000,000 increase funded by supplemental subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 
  105-18.                                                                                                       

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Insured loan     Guaranteed                    Administrative
                                                      subsidy      loan subsidy    Total subsidy     expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997............................     $80,818,000     $59,665,000    $140,483,000    $221,046,000
Budget estimate, 1998...........................      42,980,000      54,610,000      97,590,000     219,861,000
Committee recommendation........................      47,809,000      54,610,000     102,419,000     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  
                                                                   1997 enacted     1998 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Farm ownership:                                                                                             
        Direct..................................................           5,920           4,020           5,940
        Guaranteed..............................................          22,055          15,440          15,440
    Farm operating:                                                                                             
        Direct \1\..............................................          65,450          29,565          32,224
        Unsubsidized guarantees.................................          19,210          19,890          19,890
        Subsidized guarantees...................................          18,400          19,280          19,280
    Indian tribe land acquisition...............................              54             132             132
    Emergency disaster..........................................           6,365           6,008           6,008
    Boll weevil eradication loans...............................             499  ..............             250
    Credit sales of acquired properties.........................           2,530           3,255           3,255
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies...................................         140,483          97,590         102,419
ACIF expenses...................................................         221,046         219,861         219,861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $6,300,000 supplemental appropriation for the subsidy costs of additional loans provided by Public 
  Law 105-18.                                                                                                   

                         Risk Management Agency

                 administrative and operating expenses

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................     271,036,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................     266,571,000

\1\ Includes $202,571,000 for sales commissions to agents.

    Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996 [FAIR Act], 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 the Risk Management Agency, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $266,571,000. This is $4,465,000 less than the 
budget request and $202,571,000 more than the 1997 level. 
Included in the Committee's recommendation is $64,000,000 for 
administrative and operating expenses and $202,571,000 for 
sales commissions of agents.

                              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 60 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $50 per policy, or $200 for all crops 
grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600 
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At 
least catastrophic [CAT] coverage was required for producers 
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and 
certain other farm programs. This coverage is available either 
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. 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 required 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, except in 
those areas where there are insufficient private insurance 
providers.
    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, 1997....................................  $1,785,013,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................   1,584,135,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,584,135,000

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

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform 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 1998, 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 $1,584,135,000. This is the same as 
the budget request and $200,878,000 less than the amount 
provided in 1997.

                   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 also makes available materials and facilities 
required in connection with the storage and distribution of 
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for 
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of 
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive 
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the 
duration of Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 
1996; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 act); and 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act).
    The 1996 act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: 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 are 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 the 1938 
act, as amended by the 1996 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 is $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 will be in permanent easements, 
one-third 30-year easements or less, and one-third 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 in dealing with 
environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. 
Program funding will be $200,000,000 annually through 2002, 
except for fiscal year 1996 in which case funding was 
$124,720,000. 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 [FSA] 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 phases 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, 1997....................................  $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................     783,507,000
Committee recommendation................................     783,507,000

\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 $783,507,000. This is $716,493,000 less than the amount 
provided for 1997. The budget requested a current indefinite 
appropriation and estimated the amount to be $783,507,000.

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, 1997........................................    ($5,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     (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, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, as amended. Investigative and cleanup costs 
associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are paid 
from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation. CCC funds 
operations and maintenance costs only.

                       COMMITTEE 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 1997 
level and the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $693,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         702,000
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 for in 
1997 and $9,000 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 holding down pollution. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service works with conservation districts, 
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having 
related responsibilities in bringing 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 hold down 
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water 
sewage systems in rural areas tend to hold pollution back from 
the areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our 
cities.
    The 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, 1997....................................    $619,742,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................     722,268,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................     729,880,000

\1\ Includes funding for the watershed surveys and planning and 
technical assistance for watershed and flood prevention operations.

    Conservation operations is 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; use in 
protecting the quality of the environment; and 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.
    Water resources assistance.--Beginning in 1998, the 
salaries and expenses component of the watershed and flood 
prevention operations and the entire watershed surveys and 
planning will be incorporated into the ``Conservation 
operations'' account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $729,880,000. This amount is $110,138,000 more 
than the 1997 level and $7,612,000 more than the budget 
estimate. Included in the Committee's recommendation is funding 
for the watershed surveys and planning and technical assistance 
for watershed and flood prevention operations. However, the 
Committee expects the agency to maintain current levels of 
technical assistance for watershed surveys and planning and 
watershed and flood prevention operations and includes language 
in the bill to provide a minimum of $80,138,000 for this 
purpose.
    The Committee has included $250,000, the same as the 1997 
amount, for the continued support of agricultural development 
and resource conservation in the native Hawaiian communities 
serviced by the Molokai Agriculture Community Committee.
    The Committee provides $250,000, the same amount as 
available for 1997, to continue work on the Great Lakes Basin 
Program for soil and erosion sediment control.
    The Committee is aware that the science of soil taxonomy 
and soil classification serves as the foundation for 
determining hydric and nonhydric characteristics for soils in 
the United States. Recent research conducted in the lower 
Mississippi Valley indicates that a significant percentage of 
soils commonly referred to as Sharkey series soils do not 
possess characteristics consistent with hydric status. Since 
Sharkey soils currently appear on the hydric soils list, the 
Committee requests that the agency initiate steps to reconcile 
any inconsistencies between the existing hydric soils list and 
the findings from research results on Sharkey soils. The 
Committee instructs the agency to provide the Committee with a 
final report regarding this matter no later than December 15, 
1997.
    The Committee expects the Department to work with the Corps 
of Engineers in funding the demonstration erosion control 
program.
    The Committee expects NRCS to continue support of ground 
water activities in eastern Arkansas and programs related to 
Boeuf-Tensas and Bayou Meto. In addition, the Committee expects 
the continuation of planning and design activities for the Kuhn 
Bayou, AR, project.
    The Committee has provided an additional $3,500,000 above 
the fiscal year 1997 level for technical assistance in Franklin 
County, MS.
    The Committee supports and encourages the Department to 
provide technical assistance and funding to assist the Great 
Lakes watershed initiative.
    Also included is $4,750,000, the same amount as provided in 
1997, for continued work on the Chesapeake Bay.
    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 USDA for the 
development of GIS capabilities, and NRCS is urged to maintain 
its strong relationship with the center.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1997 
level for the Mississippi Delta water resources study to extend 
this project into the next phase. This study is vitally 
important to the entire lower Mississippi Valley.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1997 
level for the Golden Meadow, LA, Plant Materials Center for 
further development and commercialization of the artificial 
seed for smooth cord grass, which is used to prevent coastal 
erosion. This important biotechnology research is done in 
collaboration with the Crowley, LA, Rice Research Station.
    The Committee notes the economic potential for small 
farmers relating to the expansion of aquaculture in West 
Virginia and supports the development of water treatment 
practices for wastewater from aquaculture.
    The Committee supports the Department to provide the needed 
financial assistance to complete the Indian Creek Watershed 
project in Mississippi.
    The Committee includes $400,000, the same as the fiscal 
year 1997 amount, to continue a pilot program for the 
development of techniques to address the loess hills erosion 
problem in Iowa.
    The Committee includes an increase of $5,000,000 from the 
1997 level for the grazing land conservation assistance program 
begun in fiscal year 1997. The Committee encourages the agency 
to establish and implement a unique code within conservation 
operations to provide an accountability of funds used and a 
means of tracking accomplishments.
    The Committee provides an additional $120,000 from the 1997 
level for a poultry litter composting project utilizing sawdust 
in West Virginia.
    The Committee urges the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service to provide additional support to initiate work on 
Poinsett Channel main ditch No. 1, Arkansas.
    The Committee encourages the Department to use current 
balances in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program 
fund until expended, to meet existing contract obligations.
    West Virginia has approximately 1.6 million acres of 
grazing land. Of that total, 1.3 million acres are eroding 
beyond the soil's ability to replenish itself. The Committee 
provides $300,000, the 1997 funding level, to carry out a long-
range grazing lands initiative to reduce the current erosion in 
West Virginia.
    The Committee is concerned that the introduction of alien 
weed pests into Hawaii poses a serious threat to pastures, 
forests, and watersheds. The Committee directs the Department 
to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in securing 
environmentally safe biological controls for these pests 
including explorations for insect and plant pathogens and to 
provide funds as necessary.
    The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from the 
1997 level for the NRCS to work in cooperation with the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers to develop a feasibility study for a 
watershed project in Waianae, HI, to alleviate and prevent the 
kind of flood disaster which has occurred in the area.
    The Committee is aware of the need for a sound solution to 
reduce poultry-related pollution in the South Branch of the 
Potomac River. The Committee provides $500,000 and directs the 
agency to work with the West Virginia Department of Agriculture 
to continue operation and testing of concepts such as the 
Micgas methane gas process at the poultry waste energy recovery 
[POWER] project in Moorefield, WV, and to study the feasibility 
of resource recovery at Franklin, WV.

                     watershed surveys and planning

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $12,381,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation \1\............................................

\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.
    Beginning in 1998, the entire watershed surveys and 
planning will be incorporated into the ``Conservation 
operations'' account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee concurs with the budget request and includes 
funding for watershed surveys and planning under conservation 
operations.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $101,036,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................      40,000,000

\1\ Funding for technical assistance is included under conservation 
operations.

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public 
Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-
1009), provides for cooperation 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.
    Beginning in 1998, the salaries and expenses component of 
this account will be incorporated into the ``Conservation 
operations'' account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed and flood prevention operations, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000. This 
amount is $61,036,000 less than the 1997 appropriation and the 
same as the budget request.
    The Committee understands that the budget includes funding 
for the following projects, which the Committee supports: the 
Little Sioux and Mosquito Creek projects in Iowa; the Little 
Auglaize watershed in Ohio; the Bush River in Virginia; and 
supports the continuation of the Potomac headwaters project in 
West Virginia at a level of $1,800,000.
    The Committee expects NRCS to continue to work on the 
necessary resources to complete innovative community-based 
comprehensive resource management plans for West Virginia 
communities devastated by these flood events.
    The Committee is aware of limited water storage and 
inefficient delivery systems on the islands of Hawaii and Maui 
which are unable to mitigate persistent drought conditions and 
conserve water to support diversified agriculture activities. 
The Committee encourages the Department to raise the priority 
of developing this storage capacity and improving the 
efficiency of the delivery systems.
    The Committee is aware of outstanding emergency watershed 
needs in the following Mississippi counties: Adams, Alcorn, 
Claiborne, Covington, DeSoto, 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, Webster, 
Winston, Lamar, and Yazoo. The Committee encourages the 
Department to give consideration to these outstanding needs 
when allocating funds to the States. Other outstanding 
emergency watershed needs are: Tioga County, PA; Deadman-
Bullard project, Lakeview, OR; Port Gibson, MS; and Seely 
Creek, NY.
    The Committee is aware of the need for a cost-share pilot 
flood plain project for the Tygart River basin in West 
Virginia.
    The Committee encourages the Department to complete work on 
the following projects: Lower Otter and Dead Creek, lower 
Winooski River, the Barton and Clyde River projects in Vermont; 
the Park River Dam in North Dakota; and the South Delta 
watershed project in Mississippi.
    The Committee remains aware of continuous flooding in the 
Devils Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has 
risen 20 feet over the past 5 years. The Committee encourages 
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, with the cooperation 
of the Farm Services 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, 1997....................................     $29,377,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      47,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,700,000

    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 $47,700,000. This amount is 
$18,323,000 more than the 1997 level and the same as the budget 
estimate.

                      forestry incentives program

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $6,325,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       6,325,000
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 1997 appropriation and the budget request.

              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

    This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV 
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. 
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with 
demonstrated experience in providing education on other 
agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible 
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian 
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary 
education facilities.
    Administration of the program was transferred to the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service from the Farm Service 
Agency beginning in fiscal year 1997.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000. This amount is 
$2,000,000 more than the 1997 level and $2,000,000 less 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 loan program throughout all 
America providing loan and grant assistance 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, 1997....................................        $588,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         596,000
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 $8,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the 1997 level.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 1997....................................................
Budget estimate, 1998...................................    $688,570,000
Committee recommendation................................     644,259,000

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will 
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to 
applicant needs.
    With the exception of the 12.5 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account and the 3 percent of the funding in 
the ``Federally recognized Indian tribe'' account, funding will 
be allocated to rural development State directors for their 
priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State directors are 
authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount 
in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal 
year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for 
the State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds 
allowed to be reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural 
community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, 
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated 
for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, 
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities 
providing essential services to rural residents. Such 
facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development such as fire and rescue services, health 
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social, 
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for 
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open 
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the 
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 
funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), would be used in conjunction with the existing 
direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of 
community facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and 
community centers. Grants will be targeted to the lowest income 
communities. Communities that have lower population and income 
levels would receive a higher cost-share contribution through 
these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the 
cost of developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made not to exceed 
$1,500,000 annually to public bodies and private nonprofit 
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made 
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train, 
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and 
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct 
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development; and to establish centers for training, technology, 
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the 
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 309A, and 310B 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water 
and waste development costs. Development loans are made to 
associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit 
basis, municipalities and similar organizations, generally 
designated as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose 
projects for the development, storage, treatment, purification, 
and distribution of domestic water or the collection, 
treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may 
not exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects 
and can supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by 
applicants to pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310(b)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 
as amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private 
nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to 
local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or 
eliminating pollution of water resources and for improving the 
planning and management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the 
Committee recommends $644,259,000. This amount is $44,311,000 
less than the budget request and $644,259,000 more than the 
fiscal year 1997 amount.
    Due to limitations of funding, the Committee has chosen not 
to initiate grants to States in the Rural Community Advancement 
Program [RCAP] and includes language in the bill prohibiting 
the availability of funds for this purpose.
    Of the total amount provided, the Committee earmarks 
$97,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities.
    Community facility loans.--The Committee is aware of the 
unique problem 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 loan at the 
poverty interest rate of 4.5 percent and some 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, 1997.
    Community facility grants.--The Committee is aware of an 
application for a community facility grant from the Native 
Village Health Clinic in Nelson Lagoon, AK, and encourages the 
Department to give this application the utmost consideration 
should it meet the program eligibility requirements.
    Rural business and industry loans.--The Committee expects 
that State allocations under the Business and Industry Loan 
Guarantee Program will not be pooled ahead of schedule without 
providing at least 4 weeks notice to State directors.
    Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants from the 
following: Television demonstration grants; Rural Education and 
Technology Center, Illinois; South Carolina Heritage Corridor; 
Institute for Decision Making, Iowa; Cooperative Development 
Energy Program for multiple States; development of 
entrepreneurial capacities, Hawaii; expansion of Alaska Village 
Initiatives' rural enterprise technical assistance program, 
Alaska; the University of Colorado Health Science Center 
telemedicine project, Colorado; Swope Parkway, the Rural Health 
Outreach project, and the Delta Research Telecommunications 
Resource Center, Missouri; and the Velarde Apple Cooperative, 
New Mexico.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process. The Committee also 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 included the 1997 level of funding of 
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
    Venture capital.--The Committee expects the Department to 
issue regulations and implement the rural venture capital 
demonstration program as authorized in section 3810 of the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127).
    Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for the following projects should they meet the 
proper criteria: Fallowfield, Connellsville, and Bullskin 
Townships, PA; Coontail Water Association, and the city of 
Macon, Noxubee County, MS; and Kotzebue and Nome, AK.
    The Committee recognizes that $725,000 has been granted by 
the State of Alaska to the city of Kotzebue from a prior-year 
State appropriation toward the 50 percent non-Federal matching 
funds requirement of a USDA rural development grant of 
$875,000. Provided the city of Kotzebue contributes the balance 
of $150,000, the combined State and city funds meet the 
Committee's intent in establishing this non-Federal matching 
fund requirement.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up 
to $15,000,000 available for water systems for rural and native 
villages in Alaska, and $24,500,000 for water and waste 
disposal systems for the colonias along the United States-
Mexico border. The Committee also makes up to $5,650,000 for 
the circuit rider program.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the budget request:

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM                  
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 1998      Committee   
                                       budget request    recommendation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:                                                                
    Community facility loans:                                           
        Guaranteed..................               838               838
        Direct......................            17,548            17,548
    Community facility grants.......             9,176             9,176
    State mandatory grants..........             1,269  ................
    State matching grants...........             1,206  ................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, housing.............            30,037            27,562
                                     ===================================
Business:                                                               
  Business and industry loans:                                          
        Guaranteed..................             5,921             6,018
        Direct......................  ................  ................
    Rural business enterprise grants            40,375            40,375
    Rural business opportunity                                          
     grants.........................  ................             2,000
    State mandatory grants..........             2,132  ................
    State matching grants...........             2,025  ................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, business............            50,453            48,393
                                     ===================================
Utilities:                                                              
    Water and waste disposal loans:                                     
        Guaranteed..................  ................  ................
        Direct......................            71,647            73,509
    Water and waste disposal grants.           483,582           491,295
    Solid waste management grants...             2,753             3,500
    State mandatory grants..........            25,691  ................
    State matching grants...........            24,407  ................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities...........           608,080           568,304
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total, loans and grants.......           688,570           644,259
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Rural Housing Service

                       total appropriations level

Appropriations, 1997....................................  $1,217,481,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................   1,304,840,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,235,372,000

    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 
$1,235,272,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is 
$69,468,000 less than the budget request and $17,891,000 more 
than the 1997 level.

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1997........................................($3,459,854,000)
Budget estimate, 1998................................... (4,199,832,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (3,519,532,000)

    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 1997 levels, and 
the 1998 budget request:

                   RURAL HOUSING LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS                  
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
                               1997 level   1998 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund                                            
 Program Account:                                                       
    Low-income family                                                   
     housing (sec. 502):                                                
        Direct..............   (1,000,000)   (1,000,000)    (1,000,000) 
        Unsubsidized                                                    
         guaranteed.........   (2,300,000)   (3,000,000)    (2,300,000) 
    Housing repair (sec.                                                
     504)...................      (35,000)      (30,000)       (30,000) 
    Farm labor (sec. 514)...      (15,000)      (15,001)       (15,001) 
    Rental housing (sec.                                                
     515)...................      (58,654)     (128,640)      (128,640) 
    Multifamily housing                                                 
     guarantees (sec. 538)..       ( \1\ )  ............       (19,700) 
    Credit sales of acquired                                            
     property...............      (50,000)      (25,004)       (25,004) 
    Site loans (sec. 524)...         (600)         (600)          (600) 
    Self-help housing land                                              
     development fund.......         (600)         (587)          (587) 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF...........   (3,459,854)   (4,199,832)    (3,519,532) 
                             ===========================================
Rural Housing Assistance                                                
 Program [RHAP].............      130,433   ............  ..............
Rural Housing Service grants                                            
 and payments:                                                          
    Mutual and self-help                                                
     housing................       26,000   ............        26,000  
    Rental assistance.......      493,870       593,397        541,397  
    Rural community fire                                                
     protection grants......       ( \1\ )        2,000          1,285  
    Rural housing assistance                                            
     grants [RHAG]..........  ............       70,900         45,720  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing                                              
       grants and payments..      650,303       666,297        614,402  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, RHS loans and                                              
       grants...............   (4,110,157)   (4,866,129)    (4,133,934) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1997 under the Rural Housing Assistance       
  Program [RHAP].                                                       

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Direct loan     Guaranteed    Administrative
                                                                      subsidy      loan subsidy      expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997............................................    $134,020,000      $6,210,000    $426,948,000
Budget estimate, 1998...........................................     218,054,000       6,900,000     413,589,000
Committee recommendation........................................     219,254,000       5,290,000     413,589,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1998, as well 
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 1997 levels and the 
1998 budget request:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
                                                 1998     recommendation
                                 1997 level    request                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                         
    Single family (sec. 502):                                           
        Direct................       83,000      128,100        128,100 
        Unsubsidized                                                    
         guaranteed...........        6,210        6,900          5,290 
    Housing repair (sec. 504).       11,081       10,308         10,308 
    Farm labor (sec. 514).....        6,885        7,388          7,388 
    Rental housing (sec. 515).       28,987       68,745         68,745 
    Multifamily housing                                                 
     guarantees (sec. 538)....      ( \1\ )  ...........          1,200 
    Credit sales of acquired                                            
     property.................        4,050        3,493          3,493 
    Self-help housing land                                              
     development fund.........           17           20             20 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies...      140,230      224,954        224,544 
                               =========================================
RHIF expenses: Administrative                                           
 expenses.....................      426,948      413,589        413,589 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1997 under the Rural Housing Assistance       
  Program [RHAP].                                                       

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 1997....................................\1\ $493,870,000
Budget estimate, 1998................................... \2\ 593,397,000
Committee recommendation................................     541,397,000

\1\ Funding for the portion of rental assistance payments supporting 
rental housing section 515 new construction is included in the ``Rural 
Housing Assistance Program'' [RHAP] account.
\2\ Includes proposed $52,000,000 to convert HUD section 8 contracts to 
USDA section 521.

    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 $541,397,000. This amount is 
$52,000,000 less than the budget request and $47,527,000 more 
than the 1997 appropriated level.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................  \2\ 26,000,000

\1\ Funding for mutual and self-help housing grants is included in the 
rural housing assistance grants program request.
\2\ Funding for mutual and self-help housing grants is not included in 
the rural housing assistance grants program recommended by the 
Committee.

    This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing 
Act of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations 
to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs 
under which groups of usually 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 amount as the 1997 level. 
The budget request was included in the Rural Housing Assistance 
Grants Program. The Committee has provided funding for this 
program as a separate appropriation.

                 RURAL COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION GRANTS

Appropriations, 1997....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      $2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,285,000

\1\ This program was funded under the Rural Housing Assistance Program 
[RHAP] in 1997.

    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 $1,285,000, which is the same 
level funded in 1997 in the Rural Housing Assistance Program 
and $715,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee suggests that planning and development is 
provided for the Rural Fire Protection Task Force.

                    RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------               
                                    1997                     Committee  
                                  current        1998     recommendation
                                   level       request                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                         
    Community facility:                                                 
        Direct................       14,636      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
        Guaranteed............          403      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
        Rental assistance                                               
         payments.............       22,902      ( \2\ )        ( \2\ ) 
    Rural rental housing--new                                           
     construction.............       35,023      ( \3\ )        ( \3\ ) 
    Multifamily guarantee.....        1,200  ...........        ( \3\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       74,164  ...........  ..............
                               =========================================
Grants:                                                                 
    Rural community fire                                                
     protection...............        1,285      ( \4\ )        ( \4\ ) 
    Community facility grants.        9,836      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
    Domestic farm labor.......        9,836       10,000        ( \5\ ) 
    Very low-income housing                                             
     repair...................       24,492       24,900        ( \5\ ) 
    Rural housing preservation       10,820       10,000        ( \5\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants........       56,269  ...........  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, RHAP.............      130,433  ...........  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds included in Rural Community Assistance Program.               
\2\ Funds included in rental assistance program.                        
\3\ Funds included in ``Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program'' account. 
\4\ Funds included in rural community fire protection grants.           
\5\ Funds included in ``Rural housing assistance grants'' account.      

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee does not recommend funding for the Rural 
Housing Assistance Program [RHAP]. This is the same as the 
budget request and $130,433,000 less than the 1997 level. The 
Committee provides funding for programs included in RHAP for 
fiscal year 1997 in the rural housing assistance grants, rural 
housing insurance fund, and rural community fire protection 
grants programs.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 1997....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     $70,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,720,000

\1\ Included in the Rural Housing Assistance Program [RHAP].

    This new program consolidates funding for rural housing 
grant programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding 
will provide 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, 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, as amended. 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 authorized 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 $25,180,000 less than 
the budget request. Funding for these programs for fiscal year 
1997 was provided under the ``Rural Housing Assistance 
Program'' account.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the 1997 levels and the budget 
request:

                     RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS                    
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
                                                 1998     recommendation
                                 1997 level    request                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic farm labor grants....      ( \1\ )       10,000         10,000 
Very low-income housing repair                                          
 grants.......................      ( \1\ )       24,900         24,900 
Mutual and self-help housing                                            
 grants.......................       26,000       26,000        ( \2\ ) 
Supervisory and technical                                               
 assistance grants............      ( \1\ )  ...........  ..............
Compensation for construction                                           
 defects......................      ( \1\ )  ...........  ..............
Rural housing preservation                                              
 grants.......................      ( \1\ )       10,000         10,820 
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal..............      156,433       70,900         45,720 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included in the Rural Housing Assistance Program [RHAP].            
\2\ Included in Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants Program.            

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total, RHS  
                                                                Appropriation    Transfer from     salaries and 
                                                                                 loan accounts       expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997.........................................      $60,743,000   ($366,205,000)   ($426,948,000)
Budget estimate, 1998........................................       58,804,000    (354,785,000)    (413,589,000)
Committee recommendation.....................................       58,804,000    (354,785,000)    (413,589,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Housing Service including reviewing 
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing 
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist 
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
    Under credit reform administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program 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 Services, 
including transfers from other accounts, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $413,589,000, the same as the 
budget request and $13,359,000 less than fiscal year 1997.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $104,834,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      60,852,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,438,000

    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 and the 
Rural Electrification Administration.
    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 
program levels for loans and grants administered by the Rural 
Business-Cooperative Service as compared to the 1997 levels and 
the budget request:

           RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE GRANTS AND LOANS          
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
                               1997 level   1998 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural business and industry                                             
 loans program:                                                         
    Direct and guaranteed...       ( \1\ )       ( \2\ )        ( \2\ ) 
    Rural development loan                                              
     fund...................      (37,544)      (35,000)       (40,000) 
    Rural economic                                                      
     development loans......      (12,865)      (25,000)       (12,865) 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, RBS loans......      (50,409)      (60,000)       (52,865) 
                             ===========================================
Grants:                                                                 
    Rural business                                                      
     enterprise grants......       ( \1\ )       ( \2\ )        ( \2\ ) 
    Rural cooperative                                                   
     development............       ( \1\ )        3,000          3,000  
    Alternative agriculture                                             
     research and                                                       
     commercializa-  tion...        7,000        10,000         10,000  
                             -------------------------------------------
        Total, RBS grants...        7,000        13,000         13,000  
                             ===========================================
        Total, RBS loans and                                            
         grants.............      (57,409)      (73,000)       (65,865) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under the Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program.     
\2\ Funded under the Rural Community Advancement Program.               

    The Committee has previously recognized the need to 
stimulate economic growth in Union County, PA, by specifically 
directing the Department of Agriculture to consider a rural 
business enterprise grant application by the Union County 
Planning Commission to facilitate the construction of the Union 
County Business Park. Since the Department of Agriculture has 
not provided any funds to date for this project, the Committee 
encourages the agency to work with county commissioners of 
Union County, PA, in order to explore options to facilitate the 
construction of the Union County Business Park.

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1997........................................   ($37,544,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...................................    (35,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (40,000,000)

    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 1998, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends for rural development loans a 
total loan level of $40,000,000, which is $5,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $2,456,000 more than the 1997 level.
    The Commttee directs the Department to publish a final rule 
on the Intermediary Relending Program [IRP] as soon as 
possible.
    The Committee is aware of the need for financing new or 
expanded diversified agricultural operations in Hawaii because 
of the closure of several sugarcane plantations. To address 
these problems the Committee directs the agency to develop and 
implement a pilot program in Hawaii where intermediary 
relending program funds can be used to match any non-Federal 
funds loaned by intermediary relenders to support the 
establishment or expansion of diversified agricultural 
enterprises.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct loan   Administrative
                                              subsidy        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997....................     $17,270,000  ..............
Budget estimate, 1998...................      16,888,000      $3,482,000
Committee recommendation................      19,200,000       3,482,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Committee Recommendations

    For rural development loans, the Committee recommends 
$19,200,000 for the loan subsidy costs under credit reform. 
This amount is $2,312,000 more than the budget request and 
$1,930,000 more than fiscal year 1997. Administrative expenses 
are provided at the level of $3,482,000, the same as the budget 
request.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1997........................................   ($12,865,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...................................    (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (12,865,000)

    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 loan level for rural economic 
development loans of $12,865,000. This is the same as the 1997 
level and $12,135,000 less than the budget request.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct loan   Administrative
                                              subsidy        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997....................      $2,830,000    \1\ $654,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................   \2\ 5,978,000  ..............
Committee recommendation................       3,076,000  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transfer to RBCS.                                                   
\2\ Up to $5,977,500 to be derived by transfer from interest on the     
  cushion of credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of the REA   
  Act of 1936, as amended.                                              

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy for rural 
economic development loans of $3,076,000. This amount is 
$246,000 more than the 1997 level. The budget request proposes 
$5,977,500, to be derived by transfer from interest on the 
cushion of credit payments.

 ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 1997....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

    The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Act of 1990, subtitle G of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
and Trade Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, was established to develop 
and produce marketable products other than food, feed, or 
traditional forest or fiber products. It will assist in 
researching, developing, commercializing, and marketing new 
nonfood, nonfeed uses for traditional and new agriculture 
commodities.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000. 
This is $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 1997 level and the 
same as the budget request.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 1997....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      $3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

\1\ Funded under the Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program.

    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 budget 
request and $3,000,000 more than the 1997 level.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
consider the following for cooperative development grants: 
Rural economic development through tourism at New Mexico State 
University and America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in 
Iowa.
    Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development 
grants, not to exceed $1,500,000 is provided through a 
cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer 
for Rural Areas Program, and $250,000 through a cooperative 
agreement for an agribusiness and cooperative development 
program at Mississippi State University.

             RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
                                                 1998     recommendation
                                 1997 level    request                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loans:                                                                  
    Business and industry:                                              
        Direct................  ...........      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
        Guaranteed............        6,742      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Total loans.........        6,742      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               =========================================
Grants:                                                                 
    Rural business enterprise.       43,033      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
    Rural cooperative                                                   
     development..............        1,625      ( \2\ )        ( \2\ ) 
    Rural business opportunity  ...........      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, grants...........       44,658      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               =========================================
      Total, RB-CAP...........       51,400      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP].        
\2\ Funded in a separate appropriation account.                         

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee concurs with the budget request and provides 
funding under the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP].

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total, RBS, 
                                                                   Appropriation   Transfer from   salaries and 
                                                                                   loan accounts     expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997............................................     $25,680,000      ($654,000)   ($26,334,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...........................................      27,482,000     (3,482,000)    (30,964,000)
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 
$2,828,000 more than the 1997 level and $1,802,000 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 for the expanding 
diversified agriculture sector.

                        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 LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1997........................................($1,445,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1998................................... (1,285,000,000)
Committee allowance..................................... (1,397,756,000)

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

                       committee recommendations

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the loan levels for the rural electrification and 
telecommunications loan program account as compared to the 
fiscal year 1997 levels and the budget request:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                              --------------------------    Committee   
                                                1998      recommendation
                                1997 level    request                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:                                                    
    Direct loans:                                                       
        Electric 5 percent...    (125,000)    (125,000)        (125,000)
        Telecommunications 5                                            
         percent.............     (75,000)     (40,000)         (52,756)
                              ------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........    (200,000)    (165,000)        (177,756)
                              ==========================================
Treasury rate:                                                          
 Telecommunications..........    (300,000)    (300,000)        (300,000)
Muni-rate: Electric..........    (525,000)    (400,000)        (500,000)
FFB loans:                                                              
    Electric, regular........    (300,000)    (300,000)        (300,000)
    Telecommunications.......    (120,000)    (120,000)        (120,000)
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............    (420,000)    (420,000)        (420,000)
                              ==========================================
      Total, loan                                                       
       authorizations........  (1,445,000)  (1,285,000)      (1,397,756)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ESTIMATED 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 1998, 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 1997 level and the budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                  1997 level      1998 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
    Direct loans:                                                                                               
        Electric 5 percent...................................           3,625            9,325            9,325 
        Telecommunications 5 percent.........................           1,193            1,568            2,068 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          (4,818)          10,893           11,393 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Treasury rate: Telecommunications............................              60               60               60 
Muni-rate: Electric..........................................          28,245           16,880           21,100 
FFB loans: Regular electric..................................           2,790            2,760            2,760 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................          35,913           30,593           35,313 
                                                              ==================================================
RETLP administrative expenses................................          29,982           34,398           29,982 
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, Rural electrification and telecommunications                                                       
       loans program account.................................          65,895           64,991           65,295 
(Loan authorization).........................................      (1,445,000)      (1,285,000)      (1,397,756)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1997........................................  ($175,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...................................   (175,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (175,000,000)

    The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A 
stock issued to the 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 1998, 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 1997 level and the budget request:

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct loan   Administrative
                                              subsidy        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997....................      $2,328,000      $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................       3,710,000       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................       3,710,000       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND MEDICAL LINK PROGRAM

                            loans and grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
         Budget authority, loan subsidies, and grants         ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                  1997 level      1998 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorization...........................................   ($150,000,000)   ($150,000,000)   ($150,000,000)
Direct loan subsidy..........................................       1,530,000           30,000           30,000 
Grants.......................................................       7,470,000       20,970,000       12,000,000 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total................................................       9,000,000       21,000,000       12,030,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distance learning and medical link 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 medical link program, the 
Committee recommends $12,030,000. This is $3,030,000 more than 
the 1997 level and $8,970,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to applications for the University of 
Colorado Health Science Center telemedicine project, a 
demonstration project with the Maui Community College, the 
Hawaii Community Hospital system, and the nutrition education 
activities of the University of Hawaii's College of Tropical 
Agriculture and Human Resources. This project would build upon 
existing resources and advance the use of telecommunications by 
rural communities, especially those large geographic areas 
separated by natural barriers, islands, and other similar 
areas.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to a proposal by the Vermont Department of 
Education to provide high schools in some of the State's most 
rural areas with two-way audio/video connections.

                   RURAL UTILITIES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $566,935,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................         ( \1\ )

\1\ Funding provided under the Rural Community Advancement Program 
[RCAP].

    In 1997, the Congress appropriated funds under the rural 
utilities assistance program to support water and waste 
disposal loans and grants and solid waste management grants and 
the associated administrative expenses. This program allows for 
greater flexibility to tailor the assistance to the applicant's 
needs.
    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). The program makes loans for water 
and waste disposal development costs. Development loans are 
made to associations, including corporations operating on a 
nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar organization 
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.
    The program makes grants for water and waste disposal 
development costs. Development grants are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations generally designated 
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for 
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and 
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or 
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 
percent of the development cost of the projects and can 
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to 
pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310(b)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 
as amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private 
nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to 
local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or 
eliminating pollution of water resources and for improving the 
planning and management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                     
                               --------------------------    Committee  
                                                 1998     recommendation
                                 1997 level    request                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loans:                                                                  
    Water and waste disposal:                                           
        Direct................       58,784      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
        Guaranteed............  ...........      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Total loans.........       58,784      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               =========================================
Grants:                                                                 
    Water and waste disposal..      505,610      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
    Solid waste management....        2,571      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, grants...........      508,181      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                               =========================================
      Total, RUAP.............      566,965      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding provided under the ``Rural Community Advancement Program    
  [RCAP]'' account.                                                     

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee provides no funding for the Rural Utilities 
Assistance Program. This is the same as the budget request and 
$566,935,000 less than the 1997 level. The Committee includes 
funding for this program's activities under this program for 
fiscal year 1997 under the Rural Community Advancement Program 
[RCAP].

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total, RUS, 
                                                                   Appropriation   Transfer from   salaries and 
                                                                                   loan accounts     expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997............................................     $33,195,000   ($33,482,000)   ($66,677,000)
Budget estimate, 1998...........................................      33,000,000    (37,398,000)    (70,398,000)
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 $695,000 less 
than the 1997 level and $4,416,000 less than the budget 
request.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 1997....................................        $454,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         560,000
Committee recommendation................................         454,000

    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 
Consumer Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $454,000. This amount is the same as the 1997 
level and $106,000 less than the budget request.

                       Food and Consumer Service

    The Food and Consumer 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.
    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 Program Administration.--All salaries and Federal 
operating expenses of the Food and Consumer 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, 1996, there were 1,684 full-time permanent and 
78 part-time and temporary employees in the Agency. FCS's 
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria VA, totals 
583, and 1,179 FCS employees are located in the field. There 
are 7 regional offices employing 769 employees, and the balance 
of the Agency is located in 6 food stamp compliance offices, 1 
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 2 administrative 
review offices, and 67 field offices. Funds for this program 
are provided by direct appropriation.

                        child nutrition programs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 32                     
                                                              Appropriation       transfers           Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997......................................    $3,219,544,000    $5,433,753,000    $8,653,297,000
Budget estimate, 1998.....................................     2,631,375,000     5,151,391,000     7,782,766,000
Committee recommendation..................................     2,617,365,000     5,151,391,000     7,769,066,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. FCS 
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 
        1998, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.4 billion school lunches 
        including 1.9 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.5 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 26.5 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 1998, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.4 
        billion lunches, of which 2.2 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.3 billion at reduced price. Over 
        15 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 1998, the program will serve an estimated 1.2 
        billion breakfasts to a daily average of 7.3 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 1998, $112,808,000 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 1998, 
        approximately 143.9 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 1998, 
        approximately 1.7 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) Food Service Management Institute [FSMI].--The 
        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 1998 approximately 154 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 145 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 1998, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 16.4 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 12.6 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $2,617,675,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $5,151,391,000, for a total program of $7,769,066,000. 
This amount is $884,231,000 less than the 1997 program level 
and $13,700,000 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                       1997 estimate    1998 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................       5,236,389       4,327,804       4,327,804
School Breakfast Program........................................       1,189,972       1,265,507       1,265,507
State administrative expenses...................................         104,089         112,808         112,808
Summer Food Service Program.....................................         254,941         277,292         277,292
Child and Adult Care Food Program...............................       1,525,712       1,411,590       1,411,590
Special Milk Program............................................          19,350          19,747          19,747
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support.........         304,113         337,194         337,194
Nutrition studies and surveys...................................           1,000           3,000           3,000
Coordinated review system.......................................           4,031           4,124           4,124
School meals initiative.........................................           6,250          10,000          10,000
Nutrition education and training................................       \1\ 3,750          10,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By transfer from funding provided for the school meals initiative.                                          

    The total includes $10,000,000 for the school meals 
initiative. Included in this amount is a minimum of $1,900,000 
for food service training and technical assistance, of which 
$1,000,000 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.

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

Appropriations, 1997 \1\................................  $3,805,807,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \2\...............................   4,108,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,927,600,000

\1\ Includes $76,000,000 in supplemental funding provided by Public Law 
105-18.
\2\ Includes a proposed contingency reserve of $100,000,000.

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.4 
million participants at an average food cost of $33.17 per 
person per month in fiscal year 1998.
    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 $3,927,600,000. This amount is $121,793,000 
more than the 1997 appropriation and $180,400,000 less than the 
budget request. The Committee does not provide the $100,000,000 
included in the budget request to create a program contingency 
reserve. Should additional funding become necessary, the 
Committee will consider a supplemental request.
    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 the current average 
participation level of 7.4 million in fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee makes available up to $12,000,000, $5,250,000 
more than the fiscal year 1997 level, to carry out the WIC 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. This is the same as the 
budget request level.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill requested 
in the President's budget authorizing the Secretary to adjust 
the funds allocation process in fiscal year 1998. Each State 
agency's allocation for fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds 
would be reduced by the amount of food funds that the State 
chooses to spend forward from fiscal year 1997. In addition, 
fiscal year 1997 funds that are recovered from the States would 
be made available to States to maintain the level of funding 
received in fiscal year 1997, adjusted for inflation. Priority 
is to be given to under fair share States (those not receiving 
funds commensurate with their percent of the total WIC 
population) that the Secretary determines can effectively 
manage and utilize additional funds. The Committee grants the 
authority requested as an interim measure and directs the 
Department to proceed to revise the current food funding 
formula, in consultation with WIC State agencies, and publish a 
proposed rule early in fiscal year 1998.
    To safeguard WIC cost containment savings, the Committee 
continues to include in the bill a provision to ensure 
competitive contracting of infant formula based on lowest net 
wholesale price. The Committee again urges the Department to 
address this issue on a permanent basis through the rulemaking 
process.
    The Committee also has learned that several States have 
included provisions in WIC infant formula competitive bid 
solicitations specifying the truckload weight that will be used 
to determine the wholesale price of formula when evaluating 
bids. Specifying the weight for a truckload results in States 
evaluating bids using the best price from some manufacturers 
and a higher (less competitive) price from others. Wholesale 
price is one of two factors used in evaluating competitive 
bids. The Committee is concerned that States including this 
type of provision in their bids are not awarding WIC infant 
formula contracts to the manufacturer providing the most 
savings to the State. These types of provisions are 
anticompetitive and do not make the best use of Federal funds 
provided to the WIC program. The Committee understands that the 
Department is taking steps to fix the provision 
administratively. The Committee directs the Department to do 
whatever is necessary as soon as possible to alleviate this 
situation.
    The Committee restates its concern about the notice of 
intent to propose rulemaking and solicitation of comments 
issued on March 18, 1996, by the Food and Consumer Service (7 
CFR part 246) regarding review of the sugar limitation 
applicable to breakfast cereals approved for the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC]. In the Committee report for fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee noted that the sugar limitation on WIC-eligible 
cereals has been formally reviewed and reaffirmed by the 
Department on at least seven prior occasions. The Committee 
expressed its view that further review of the sugar standard 
would appear unwarranted absent specific new evidence of 
potential benefits to WIC participants from modifying the sugar 
limitation.
    The Committee is concerned that despite significant public 
response to the notice of intent last year, the Department has 
not yet reached a resolution of the matter. The Department is 
encouraged to resolve the matter expeditiously and to provide 
the Committee with any scientific evidence or rationale which 
would support further scrutiny of this particular nutritional 
standard at this time.
    While the Committee recognizes that the Department is 
considering a comprehensive review of the full WIC food 
package, the Committee wishes to emphasize that any such review 
should be conducted promptly and efficiently and should not 
waste limited Government resources by duplicating previous 
studies of the sugar cap issue.

                           food stamp program

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Amount in                      TEFAP commodity                  
                                                                       Expenses          reserve        Puerto Rico       purchases           Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997.............................................   $26,264,029,000     $100,000,000   $1,174,000,000  \1\ $80,000,000   $27,618,029,000
Budget estimate, 1998............................................    23,747,479,000    2,500,000,000    1,204,000,000      100,000,000    27,551,479,000
Committee recommendation.........................................    23,747,479,000    1,000,000,000    1,204,000,000      100,000,000    26,051,479,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduced from $100,000,000 to $80,000,000 by Public Law 105-18.                                                                                      

    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 Consumer 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. As the major alternative to the paper food 
stamp system, electronic benefit transfer [EBT] is operating 
statewide in Maryland, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, and 
Utah, and in parts of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New 
Jersey, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Illinois, 
and is planned in other States. Wyoming implemented an off-line 
demonstration project for food stamps and WIC benefits in March 
1995. Approximately 35 other States have some EBT activity 
underway, ranging from early planning through system design and 
development.
    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 
$26,051,479,000. This is $1,566,550,000 less than the 1997 
level and $1,500,000,000 less than the budget request. Of the 
amount provided, $1,000,000,000 is made available as a 
contingency reserve. This is $1,500,000,000 less than the 
contingency reserve level proposed in the budget and 
$900,000,000 more than the 1997 level.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $166,000,000
Budget estimate, 1998 \1\...............................     272,165,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,600,000

\1\ Includes funding for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and 
Pacific Island assistance funded under the ``Food donations programs for 
selected groups'' account.

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the 
President proposes to consolidate the Nutrition Program for the 
Elderly and Pacific Island assistance 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 1998 approximately 123,900 women, infants, 
and young children and 187,600 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
    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 1997, 
$45,000,000 was provided for the purchase and distribution of 
commodities authorized by section 104 of the Hunger Prevention 
Act of 1988. Enactment of 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 FCS 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 1996, $14,300,000 worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Donations will continue in fiscal year 1997. Precise levels 
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and 
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 1998, 
$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 $148,600,000. This amount is 
$17,400,000 less than the 1997 appropriation and $123,565,000 
less than the budget request.

              FOOD DONATIONS programs FOR SELECTED GROUPS

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $141,250,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................     141,165,000

\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 rate for 1997 is 58.57 
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 $141,165,000. This amount is $85,000 less 
than the 1997 appropriation and $141,165,000 more than the 
budget request. The budget proposes to fund programs included 
in this account under the Commodity Assistance Program. Of the 
amount recommended by the Committee, $1,165,000 is for food 
distribution payments to the Pacific Islands and $140,000,000 
is for the elderly feeding program.

               center for nutrition policy and promotion

Appropriations, 1997 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      $2,499,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Fiscal year 1997 funding of $2,218,000 for this activity is included 
under the ``Food Program Administration'' account.

    Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6901), the Center for Nutrition Policy 
and Promotion was created for the purposes of designing and 
disseminating nutrition education and information to all 
American consumers.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee does not concur with the budget proposal to 
create a separate appropriations account for the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The Committee provides funding 
for the functions of this office under food program 
administration.

                      food program administration

Appropriations, 1997....................................    $106,128,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     105,501,000
Committee recommendation................................     107,719,000

    The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for 
all of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Consumer 
Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; Special 
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, 
food donations programs for selected groups; and the Emergency 
Food Assistance Program, the Nutrition Program for the Elderly 
and Pacific Island assistance.
    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 $107,719,000. This amount is $2,218,000 
more than the budget request and $1,591,000 more than the 1997 
level.
    The Committee provides the full amount requested for food 
program administration in light of the need to minimize the 
erosion of staff essential to the agency's ability to properly 
maintain the integrity and operation of nearly $40,000,000,000 
in Federal food assistance programs. Included in the amount 
recommended by the Committee is $2,218,000, the same as the 
fiscal year 1997 level, for the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Transfers from                   
                                                             Appropriations     loan accounts         Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997......................................      $131,295,000        $4,266,000      $135,561,000
Budget estimate, 1998.....................................       146,549,000         4,393,000       150,942,000
Committee recommendation..................................       132,367,000         4,297,000       136,664,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 75 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 1996, nonprofit private trade and 
producer associations have generated an estimated 
$1,200,000,000 in contributions to more than match the 
$707,000,000 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, 12 
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 $132,367,000. This is $1,072,000 
more than the 1997 appropriation and $14,182,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the 
Cochran Fellowship Program and the $500,000 requested in the 
budget for market access barrier identification.
    The Committee continues funding at the 1997 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 provide FAS funding for information 
resources management costs and the Emerging Markets Program, as 
proposed in the budget. These activities are to continue to be 
supported through funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
The Committee includes bill language, as requested in the 
budget, to provide an advance appropriation of up to $3,000,000 
to fund overseas wage and price increases. The Committee 
expects to receive documentation from the Department of 
overseas inflation and exchange rate variations requiring the 
use of these funds.
    With respect to the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP], 
the Committee notes that in spite of the 1996 farm bill 
requirement and the fiscal year 1997 report language from this 
Committee, the Secretary has failed to fully utilize the DEIP 
program to the full extent allowed under GATT. The Committee 
strongly urges the Secretary to fully utilize the DEIP program, 
and requests that the Department submit quarterly reports to 
the Committee on the progress it is making toward meeting this 
goal for fiscal year 1998.

                             public law 480

                 public law 480 title i program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative 
                                                              Credit level      Loan subsidy        expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997......................................      $226,900,000      $185,589,000        $1,780,000
Budget estimate, 1998.....................................       112,899,000        87,869,000         1,881,000
Committee recommendation..................................       226,900,000       176,596,000         1,881,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.

                       committee recommendations

    For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends a 
program level of $247,530,000. This amount is $6,725,000 more 
than the 1997 level and $124,381,000 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, 1997....................................    $880,405,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................     877,250,000
Committee recommendation................................     887,630,000

    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  
                                                                   1997 enacted     1998 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I ocean freight differential..............................     $13,905,000     $10,250,000     $20,630,000
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.........................................................      29,500,000      30,000,000      30,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     880,405,000     877,250,000     887,630,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1998 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.

                    ccc export loans program account

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Guaranteed loan   Guaranteed loan   Administrative 
                                                                 levels            subsidy          expenses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997......................................  \1\ $3,500,000,0                                    
                                                                          00  \2\ $390,305,000        $3,820,000
Budget estimate, 1998.....................................     5,700,000,000   \3\ 527,546,000         3,975,000
Committee recommendation..................................     5,700,000,000   \3\ 527,546,000         3,820,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduced from $5,550,000,000 to $3,500,000,000 by Public Law 105-18.                                         
\2\ In 1997, the subsidy required will be financed by funding derived from the 1996 subsidy reestimates.        
\3\ In 1998, $181,506,000 will be financed by funding derived from the 1996 subsidy reestimate.                 

    In 1980, 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                                  
                                                  Prescription       clinics       Proposed new                 
                                  Appropriation  drug user fees    inspection       user fees          Total    
                                                                      fees                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1997...........    $819,971,000     $87,528,000     $13,403,000  ...............    $920,902,000
Budget estimate, 1998..........     750,922,000      91,204,000      13,966,000  \1\ $131,643,00                
                                                                                               0     987,735,000
Committee recommendation.......     843,971,000      91,204,000      13,966,000  ...............     949,141,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposes legislation to authorize existing and new user fees to     
  allow the FDA to collect an additional $131,643,000.                                                          

                       committee recommendations

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $843,971,000. This amount is $24,000,000 more 
than the 1997 level and $93,049,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee also recommends $91,204,000 in 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, and 
$13,966,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee 
collections, as requested in the President's budget. These 
amounts are $3,676,000 and $563,000 above the 1997 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.
    The Committee provides increased funding of $24,000,000, as 
requested, to fund FDA's proposed initiatives to increase the 
safety of the Nation's food supply. This includes $20,000,000 
for the Foods Program and $4,000,000 for the Animal Drugs and 
Feeds Program.
    The Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal 
year 1997 level for costs associated with FDA's final rule for 
the regulation of nicotine-containing tobacco products.
    The administration's budget request includes $34,000,000 to 
fund the Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] implementation of 
its August 28, 1996, final rule entitled ``Regulations 
Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and 
Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents''.
    The Committee is aware of the ongoing litigation regarding 
the FDA's tobacco rule. A preliminary decision was rendered on 
April 25, 1997, by the U.S. District Court for the Middle 
District of North Carolina. That decision upheld some parts of 
the rule, invalidated others, and stayed all but those 
regulations that previously had gone into effect on February 
28, 1997. The February 28 regulations set a Federal minimum age 
of 18 for the sale of tobacco products and required proof of 
age for anyone under the age of 27. The district court's 
decision is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit.
    Given the court ruling currently in effect, the Committee 
expects the FDA's funding needs may be more limited than when 
it submitted its $34,000,000 request, which was based on the 
implementation of all provisions of the FDA's rule. Moreover, 
the Committee notes that the results of settlement discussions 
between numerous State attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers, 
public health representatives, and lawyers representing the 
tobacco companies have been presented to the Congress for 
consideration which would cover FDA's costs rather than placing 
this burden on the taxpayer.
    Given that FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over tobacco 
products is pending before the Federal courts, and a settlement 
proposal is pending before the Congress, the Committee does not 
provide the $29,086,000 increase requested for additional 
outreach activities and for enforcement grants to States.
    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.
    Further, the Committee provides $100,000, the same as the 
fiscal year 1997 level for a cooperative research program 
related to molluscan shellfish and further expects the agency 
to continue its education program on the consumption of raw 
shellfish.
    The Committee also expects the FDA to maintain funding in 
fiscal year 1998 for orphan products grants at no less than the 
fiscal year 1997 current level of $11,345,000.
    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES                               
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Current                                   Total fiscal 
                                                       fiscal year    Fiscal year   Increase for     year 1998  
                                                          1997      1998 Committee   food safety     Committee  
                                                        estimate    recommendation   initiatives  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:                                                                           
    Foods...........................................      202,639        201,766         20,000        221,766  
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition                                                            
         [CFAN].....................................       83,164         82,514         12,000         94,514  
        Field activities............................      119,475        119,252          8,000        127,252  
                                                     ===========================================================
    Human drugs.....................................      199,740        198,734    ............       198,734  
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research                                                                 
         [CDER] \1\.................................      142,186        141,487    ............       141,487  
        Field activities............................       57,554         57,247    ............        57,247  
                                                     ===========================================================
    Biologics.......................................       88,295         87,513    ............        87,513  
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research                                                            
         [CBER].....................................       75,061         74,267    ............        74,267  
        Field activities............................       13,234         13,246    ............        13,246  
                                                     ===========================================================
    Animal drugs....................................       40,704         40,029          4,000         44,029  
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]........       26,814         26,613          4,000         30,613  
        Field activities............................       13,890         13,416    ............        13,416  
                                                     ===========================================================
    Medical and radiological devices................      143,655        143,222    ............       143,222  
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health                                                              
         [CDRH].....................................      110,495        110,172    ............       110,172  
        Field activities............................       33,160         33,050    ............        33,050  
                                                     ===========================================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research                                                                  
     [NCTR].........................................       31,307         31,307    ............        31,307  
                                                     ===========================================================
Other activities:                                                                                               
    Office of the Commissioner......................       12,394         12,799    ............        12,799  
    Tobacco.........................................        4,914          4,914    ............         4,914  
    Office of Policy................................        2,705          2,848    ............         2,848  
    Office of External Affairs......................       14,659         15,079    ............        15,079  
    Office of Operations............................        3,566          3,687    ............         3,687  
        Office of Orphan Products Development.......       (1,832)        (1,887)   ............        (1,887) 
        Office of Science...........................         (675)          (696)   ............          (696) 
    Office of Management and Systems................       42,944         44,089    ............        44,089  
    FDA central services............................        8,249          8,099    ............         8,099  
                                                     ===========================================================
Rent and related activities.........................       24,200         25,885    ............        25,885  
                                                     ===========================================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget                                                              
       authority....................................      819,971        819,971         24,000        843,971  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $11,345,000 in each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for orphan products grants.                      

    The Committee directs the FDA to provide advance written 
notification to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations when reprogramming $500,000, or 5 percent, 
whichever is greater, of the amount provided for each of the 
line items specified in the Committee report, except in the 
case of an imminent threat to the public health or safety. In 
such case, the Committee is to be notified subsequent to the 
reprogramming action.
    The FDA also is required to seek advance reprogramming 
approval if a reallocation of funds within an account would 
result in a major policy, program, or personnel change contrary 
to the action taken by the Congress or presented to the 
Committee in the agency's budget justification. In addition, 
the agency is expected to provide advance written notification 
to the Committee if it intends to initiate new activities, 
studies, or investigations of a significant nature, regardless 
of whether a reprogramming action is required in accordance 
with the threshold amounts set forth in this report.
    Timely FDA reviews.--The Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic 
Act [FFDC or the act] requires various FDA premarket approvals 
to protect consumers from unsafe drug, medical device, and food 
products, and to address ancillary matters related to those 
products. The act specifies review periods to prevent excessive 
delays. This requirement provides assurance that is important 
as an incentive for companies to invest in development of 
innovative products and in permitting access to state-of-the-
art treatment and prevention techniques for various diseases. 
Because delay in approval of safe and effective products can 
have a significant adverse affect on public health, the 
Committee remains deeply concerned that FDA generally does not 
meet its statutory duty to timely review and approve or deny 
various petitions and applications. While improvements in 
processing times have occurred in some areas, much further 
improvement is required for FDA to meet its statutory duties.
    FDA has told this Committee that it interprets its 
statutory requirement to approve or disapprove a generic drug 
application within 180 days to mean that FDA must review and 
take action on such applications within 180 days. The Committee 
notes that FDA's interpretation does not require final agency 
action within 180 days, as the plain language of the statute 
requires. The Committee expects FDA to comply with the plain 
language of all statutory timeframes specified in the FFDCA.
    The Committee notes that Secretary Shalala has transmitted 
to Congress legislative proposals that, among other things, 
would require FDA to annually submit to Congress a report 
stating progress in achieving agency-established goals 
regarding review of various applications and petitions. The 
Committee believes that compliance with the statutory duty of 
timely review would be an appropriate initial goal for FDA. The 
Committee directs the FDA, consistent with the administration's 
legislative proposal, to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
within 90 days after the beginning of the fiscal year, a 
performance report stating the progress of FDA in complying 
with statutory review periods and explaining its plans and 
actions to perform timely, effective reviews as required under 
the Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act.
    Blood and blood product safety.--The Committee understands 
that as a result of language included in the Committee's report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1997 appropriations act, the FDA 
initiated discussions with the National Hemophilia Foundation 
on concerns over the need to strengthen FDA's safeguards to 
protect the integrity of the U.S. blood supply and blood 
products. Much still needs to be done to prevent, as well as 
respond rapidly and effectively, to cases of viral or 
pathogenic contamination of blood products. The Committee 
directs the FDA to move forward on: (1) defining and 
documenting the decisionmaking steps for initiating a blood 
product investigation following an adverse event and proceeding 
with blood product withdrawal or recall, and (2) convening a 
working group to improve patient notification of adverse events 
in blood products. The Committee believes the working group 
should include not only other Public Health Service entities as 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and the 
National Institutes of Health [NIH] but also the National 
Hemophilia Foundation, consumers and treaters, blood 
collectors, and blood product manufacturers. The Committee 
expects a progress report from FDA no later than December 1, 
1997.
    Asthma inhalers.--The Committee is aware that FDA has 
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPR] that 
would expedite the phaseout of the use of chlorofluorocarbons 
[CFC's] in metered-dose inhalers for asthma patients. Because 
of the seriousness and prevalence of asthma, particularly among 
children and lower income individuals, the Committee urges FDA 
to consider carefully all ramifications of its ANPR before 
proceeding further on the matter, including the relative 
environmental significance of CFC emissions from asthma 
inhalers, the effect of such action on costs to patients, its 
possible impacts on asthma morbidity and mortality, and the 
availability of feasible alternatives to CFC's for use in 
asthma inhalers. The Committee expects FDA to consider 
carefully whether the public health would be better served by a 
less intrusive and proscriptive approach.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $21,350,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      22,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,900,000

    In addition to Washington area laboratories which are in 
nine separate locations, there are 24 lab facilities 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 $22,900,000. This amount 
is $1,550,000 more than the 1997 appropriation and the same as 
the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes the $14,550,000 
requested for construction of phase II of the Arkansas Regional 
Laboratory for the Office of Regulatory Affairs in Jefferson, 
AR. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation included $13,000,000 for 
phase I construction.

                         rental payments (fda)

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $46,294,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      46,294,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,294,000

    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 recommends an appropriation of $46,294,000 
for rental payments of the Food and Drug Administration. This 
amount is the same as the budget estimate and the 1997 level.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $10,290,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................       7,728,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,728,000

    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 
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 1997, 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 1996, 1997, and 
1998, the Treasury portion of interest assessments was 
estimated at 13, 9, and 7 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 $7,728,000. 
This is $2,562,000 less than the 1997 level and the same as the 
budget estimate.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 1997....................................     $55,101,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      60,101,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,101,000

    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 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 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; four 
regional offices located in Chicago, New York, Kansas City, and 
Los Angeles; and a branch office located in Minneapolis.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
recommends $60,101,000. The amount provided is $5,000,000 more 
than the 1997 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee has recommended the full budget request for 
the Commission. The additional resources will enhance the 
Commission's ability to detect fraud, provide a greater level 
of customer protection, and ensure the continued integrity of 
the commodities markets. The Commission's strong market 
presence is critical given the growth in market trading volume, 
the use of more complex trading and derivative instruments, and 
the expanded international participation in U.S. markets and 
trading links between U.S. exchanges and foreign markets.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitations, 1997.......................................     $37,478,000
Budget estimate, 1998...................................      34,423,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,423,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $34,423,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. This 
is the same as the budget request and $3,055,000 less than the 
fiscal year 1997 level.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701-721 of the general provisions are essentially 
the same as those included in the fiscal year 1997 and previous 
years' appropriations acts.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following new 
provisions:
    Section 722 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to carry out an export enhancement program 
in excess of $150,000,000 in fiscal year 1998.
    Section 723 to prohibit the use of funds made available to 
the Department of Agriculture by the act from being used to 
acquire or significantly upgrade new information technology 
systems unless approved by the chief information officer with 
the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
Investment Review Board.
    Section 724 to amend the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 
to include Pueraria lobata Dc.
    Section 725 to exempt the Martin Luther King area of 
Pawley's Island in Georgetown County, SC, from the population 
eligibility ceiling under section 520 of the Housing Act of 
1949 to continue its eligibility for a section 504 housing 
rehabilitation grant issued prior to a new population survey 
placing the area over the population ceiling.
    Section 726 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act to the Food and Drug Administration to relocate the FDA 
Division of Drug Analysis from St. Louis, MO; or to proceed 
with a plan to close or consolidate FDA's Baltimore, MD, field 
laboratory.
    Section 727 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to 
submit a plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations before certain reductions occur in the employee 
levels of the Rural Development Agency. This plan should 
include a justification and cost savings of such reductions.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1998, 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, 1998, 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 1998 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 1998 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:
    Section 515 rental housing loans;
    Section 538 guaranteed multifamily housing loans;
    Dairy indemnity program;
    Nutrition program for the elderly;
    Food assistance for nuclear-affected islands; and
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act and Mammography Quality 
Standards Act user fee collections.

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 H.R. 2016, Military Construction 
appropriations bill, 1998, and S. 1033, an original 
Agriculture, Rural Development appropriations bill, 1998, 
subject to amendment and subject to their budget allocations, 
and S. 1034, an original VA-HUD appropriations bill, subject to 
amendment and subject to appropriate scoring, by a recorded 
vote of 28-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
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 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

          * * * * * * *

                SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2009d. Rural Development Trust Funds

(a) * * *

    (3) Rural business and cooperative development

          The rural business and cooperative development 
        category consists of all amounts made available for--
                  (A) rural business opportunity grants under 
                section 1926(a)(11)(A) of this title;
                  (B) business and industry direct and 
                guaranteed loans under section 1932(a)(1) of 
                this title; or
                  (C) rural business enterprise grants or rural 
                educational network grants under section 
                1932(c) of this title.
          * * * * * * *

                       CHAPTER 61--NOXIOUS WEEDS

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2802. Definitions

    As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise 
requires:
          (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (c) ``Noxious weed'' means any living stage 
        (including but not limited to, seeds and reproductive 
        parts) of any parasitic or other plant of a kind, or 
        subdivision of a kind, which is of foreign origin, is 
        new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, 
        and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other 
        useful plants, livestock, or poultry or other interests 
        of agriculture, including irrigation, or navigation or 
        the fish and wildlife resources of the United States or 
        the public health, and includes kudza (Pueraria lobata 
        Dc).

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL 
                                                                        YEAR 1998                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Senate Committee recommendation   
                                                                                                   Committee              compared with (+ or -)        
                        Item                          1997 appropriation    Budget estimate     recommendation   ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1997 appropriation    Budget estimate 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
           TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
        Production, Processing, and Marketing                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Secretary.............................         $2,836,000          $2,872,000          $2,836,000   ..................           -$36,000 
Executive Operations:                                                                                                                                   
    Chief Economist.................................          4,231,000           5,308,000           5,252,000         +$1,021,000             -56,000 
    Commission on 21st Century Production                                                                                                               
     Agriculture....................................  ..................          1,100,000   ..................  ..................         -1,100,000 
    National Appeals Division.......................         11,718,000          13,359,000          12,360,000            +642,000            -999,000 
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis...........          5,986,000           5,918,000           5,986,000   ..................            +68,000 
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business                                                                                                          
     Utilization \1\................................  ..................            795,000             783,000            +783,000             -12,000 
    Office of Chief Information Officer.............  ..................          4,828,000           4,773,000          +4,773,000             -55,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations...................         21,935,000          31,308,000          29,154,000          +7,219,000          -2,154,000 
Chief Financial Officer.............................          4,283,000           4,718,000           4,283,000   ..................           -435,000 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration            613,000             621,000             613,000   ..................             -8,000 
Agriculture buildings and facilities (USDA).........        144,053,000         131,085,000         131,085,000         -12,968,000   ..................
    Payments to GSA.................................       (103,754,000)        (98,600,000)        (98,600,000)        (-5,154,000)  ..................
    Building operations and maintenance.............        (16,794,000)        (24,785,000)        (24,785,000)        (+7,991,000)  ..................
    Repairs, renovations, and construction..........        (23,505,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)       (-18,505,000)  ..................
    Relocation expenses.............................  ..................         (2,700,000)         (2,700,000)        (+2,700,000)  ..................
Hazardous waste management..........................         15,700,000          25,000,000          15,700,000   ..................         -9,300,000 
Departmental administration.........................         30,529,000          25,258,000          24,948,000          -5,581,000            -310,000 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional                                                                                                     
 Relations..........................................          3,668,000           3,714,000           3,668,000   ..................            -46,000 
Office of Communications............................          8,138,000           8,279,000           8,138,000   ..................           -141,000 
Office of the Inspector General.....................         63,028,000          65,259,000          63,728,000            +700,000          -1,531,000 
Office of the General Counsel.......................         27,749,000          29,449,000          29,098,000          +1,349,000            -351,000 
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,                                                                                                             
 Education and Economics............................            540,000             547,000             540,000   ..................             -7,000 
Economic Research Service...........................         53,109,000          54,310,000          53,109,000   ..................         -1,201,000 
National Agricultural Statistics Service............        100,221,000         119,877,000         118,048,000         +17,827,000          -1,829,000 
    Census of Agriculture...........................        (17,500,000)        (36,327,000)        (36,327,000)       (+18,827,000)  ..................
Agricultural Research Service.......................        716,826,000         726,797,000         738,000,000         +21,174,000         +11,203,000 
    Buildings and facilities........................         69,100,000          59,300,000          69,100,000   ..................         +9,800,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service..........        785,926,000         786,097,000         807,100,000         +21,174,000         +21,003,000 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension                                                                                                    
 Service:                                                                                                                                               
    Research and education activities...............        421,504,000         422,342,000         427,526,000          +6,022,000          +5,184,000 
    Native Americans Institutions Endowment Fund....         (4,600,000)         (4,600,000)         (4,600,000)  ..................  ..................
    Buildings and facilities........................         61,591,000   ..................  ..................        -61,591,000   ..................
    Extension Activities............................        426,273,000         417,811,000         423,322,000          -2,951,000          +5,511,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education,                                                                                                     
       and Extension Service........................        909,368,000         840,153,000         850,848,000         -58,520,000         +10,695,000 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and                                                                                                     
 Regulatory Pro-  grams.............................            618,000             625,000             618,000   ..................             -7,000 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:                                                                                                             
    Salaries and expenses...........................        434,909,000         424,491,000         437,183,000          +2,274,000         +12,692,000 
    AQI user fees \2\...............................        (98,000,000)       (100,000,000)       (100,000,000)        (+2,000,000)  ..................
    Buildings and facilities........................          3,200,000           7,200,000           4,200,000          +1,000,000          -3,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection                                                                                                         
       Service......................................        438,109,000         431,691,000         441,383,000          +3,274,000          +9,692,000 
Agricultural Marketing Service:                                                                                                                         
    Marketing Services..............................         38,507,000          49,786,000          49,627,000         +11,120,000            -159,000 
        New user fees...............................         (3,887,000)         (4,000,000)         (4,000,000)          (+113,000)  ..................
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, from                                                                                                        
     fees collected)................................        (59,012,000)        (59,521,000)        (59,521,000)          (+509,000)  ..................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and                                                                                                        
     supply (transfer from section 32)..............         10,576,000          10,690,000          10,690,000            +114,000   ..................
    Payments to states and possessions..............          1,200,000           1,200,000           1,200,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Marketing Service.........         50,283,000          61,676,000          61,517,000         +11,234,000            -159,000 
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards                                                                                                                
 Administration.....................................         23,128,000          25,722,000          23,583,000            +455,000          -2,139,000 
    Inspection and Weighing Services (limitation on                                                                                                     
     administrative expenses, from fees collected)..        (43,207,000)        (43,092,000)        (43,092,000)          (-115,000)  ..................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.......            446,000             583,000             446,000   ..................           -137,000 
Food Safety and Inspection Service..................        574,000,000         591,209,000         590,614,000         +16,614,000            -595,000 
    Lab accreditation fees \3\......................         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing..      3,258,280,000       3,240,053,000       3,261,057,000          +2,777,000         +21,004,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              Farm Assistance Programs                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign                                                                                                      
 Agricultural Services..............................            572,000             580,000             572,000   ..................             -8,000 
Farm Service Agency:                                                                                                                                    
    Salaries and expenses...........................        746,440,000         742,789,000         700,659,000         -45,781,000         -42,130,000 
    (Transfer from export loans)....................           (589,000)           (648,000)           (589,000)  ..................           (-59,000)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)..................           (745,000)           (815,000)           (815,000)           (+70,000)  ..................
    (Transfer from ACIF)............................       (208,446,000)       (209,861,000)       (209,861,000)        (+1,415,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and expenses..................       (956,220,000)       (954,113,000)       (911,924,000)       (-44,296,000)       (-42,189,000)
    State mediation grants..........................          2,000,000           4,000,000           2,000,000   ..................         -2,000,000 
    Dairy indemnity program.........................            100,000             100,000             550,000            +450,000            +450,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Service Agency....................        748,540,000         746,889,000         703,209,000         -45,331,000         -43,680,000 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                                                     
    Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                                
        Farm ownership loans:                                                                                                                           
            Direct..................................        (50,000,000)        (30,828,000)        (60,000,000)       (+10,000,000)       (+29,172,000)
            Guaranteed..............................       (550,000,000)       (400,000,000)       (400,000,000)      (-150,000,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal..............................       (600,000,000)       (430,828,000)       (460,000,000)      (-140,000,000)       (+29,172,000)
        Farm operating loans:                                                                                                                           
            Direct..................................       (495,071,000)       (450,000,000)       (495,000,000)           (-71,000)       (+45,000,000)
            Guaranteed unsubsidized.................     (1,700,000,000)     (1,700,000,000)     (1,700,000,000)  ..................  ..................
            Guaranteed subsidized...................       (200,000,000)       (200,000,000)       (200,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal..............................     (2,395,071,000)     (2,350,000,000)     (2,395,000,000)           (-71,000)       (+45,000,000)
        Indian tribe land acquisition loans.........         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Emergency disaster loans....................        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Boll weevil Loans...........................        (34,653,000)  ..................        (34,653,000)  ..................       (+34,653,000)
        Credit sales of acquired property...........        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loan authorizations................     (3,080,724,000)     (2,831,828,000)     (2,940,653,000)      (-140,071,000)      (+108,825,000)
    Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                     
        Farm ownership loans:                                                                                                                           
            Direct..................................          5,920,000           4,020,000           5,940,000             +20,000          +1,920,000 
            Guaranteed..............................         22,055,000          15,440,000          15,440,000          -6,615,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal..............................         27,975,000          19,460,000          21,380,000          -6,595,000          +1,920,000 
        Farm operating loans:                                                                                                                           
            Direct..................................         65,450,000          29,565,000          32,224,500         -33,225,500          +2,659,500 
            Guaranteed unsubsidized.................         19,210,000          19,890,000          19,890,000            +680,000   ..................
            Guaranteed subsidized...................         18,400,000          19,280,000          19,280,000            +880,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal..............................        103,060,000          68,735,000          71,394,500         -31,665,500          +2,659,500 
        Indian tribe land acquisition...............             54,000             132,000             132,000             +78,000   ..................
        Emergency disaster loans....................          6,365,000           6,008,000           6,008,000            -357,000   ..................
        Boll weevil loans subsidy...................            499,000   ..................            249,500            -249,500            +249,500 
        Credit sales of acquired property...........          2,530,000           3,255,000           3,255,000            +725,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loan subsidies.....................        140,483,000          97,590,000         102,419,000         -38,064,000          +4,829,000 
    ACIF expenses:                                                                                                                                      
        Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)......        208,446,000         209,861,000         209,861,000          +1,415,000   ..................
        Administrative expenses.....................         12,600,000          10,000,000          10,000,000          -2,600,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, ACIF expenses......................        221,046,000         219,861,000         219,861,000          -1,185,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.        361,529,000         317,451,000         322,280,000         -39,249,000          +4,829,000 
              (Loan authorization)..................     (3,080,724,000)     (2,831,828,000)     (2,940,653,000)      (-140,071,000)      (+108,825,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Risk Management:                                                                                                                              
    Administrative and operating expenses...........         64,000,000          68,465,000          64,000,000   ..................         -4,465,000 
    Sales commission of agents......................  ..................        202,571,000         202,571,000        +202,571,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Risk Management..............         64,000,000         271,036,000         266,571,000        +202,571,000          -4,465,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance Programs...............      1,174,641,000       1,335,956,000       1,292,632,000        +117,991,000         -43,324,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                    Corporations                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop                                                                                                        
 insurance corporation fund.........................      1,785,013,000       1,584,135,000       1,584,135,000        -200,878,000   ..................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:                                                                                                                      
    Reimbursement for net realized losses...........      1,500,000,000         783,507,000         783,507,000        -716,493,000   ..................
    Hazardous waste (limitation on administrative                                                                                                       
     expenses)......................................         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Corporations...........................      3,285,013,000       2,367,642,000       2,367,642,000        -917,371,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Agricultural Programs.........      7,717,934,000       6,943,651,000       6,921,331,000        -796,603,000         -22,320,000 
          (By transfer).............................       (209,780,000)       (211,324,000)       (211,265,000)        (+1,485,000)           (-59,000)
          (Loan authorization)......................     (3,080,724,000)     (2,831,828,000)     (2,940,653,000)      (-140,071,000)      (+108,825,000)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...       (107,219,000)       (107,613,000)       (107,613,000)          (+394,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources                                                                                                     
 and Environment....................................            693,000             702,000             693,000   ..................             -9,000 
Natural Resources Conservation Service:                                                                                                                 
    Conservation operations.........................        619,742,000         722,268,000         729,880,000        +110,138,000          +7,612,000 
    Watershed surveys and planning \4\..............         12,381,000   ..................  ..................        -12,381,000   ..................
    Watershed and flood prevention operations \5\...        101,036,000          40,000,000          40,000,000         -61,036,000   ..................
    Resource conservation and development...........         29,377,000          47,700,000          47,700,000         +18,323,000   ..................
    Forestry incentives program.....................          6,325,000           6,325,000           6,325,000   ..................  ..................
    Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and                                                                                                     
     ranchers.......................................          1,000,000           5,000,000           3,000,000          +2,000,000          -2,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service.        769,861,000         821,293,000         826,905,000         +57,044,000          +5,612,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs........        770,554,000         821,995,000         827,598,000         +57,044,000          +5,603,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
 TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                    
                      PROGRAMS                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.            588,000             596,000             588,000   ..................             -8,000 
Rural community advancement program.................  ..................        688,570,000         644,259,000        +644,259,000         -44,311,000 
Rural Housing Service:                                                                                                                                  
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                                                       
        Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                            
            Low-income housing (sec. 502)...........     (1,000,000,000)     (1,000,000,000)     (1,000,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.............     (2,300,000,000)     (3,000,000,000)     (2,300,000,000)  ..................      (-700,000,000)
            Housing repair (sec. 504)...............        (35,000,000)        (30,000,000)        (30,000,000)        (-5,000,000)  ..................
            Farm labor (sec. 514)...................        (15,000,000)        (15,001,000)        (15,001,000)            (+1,000)  ..................
            Rental housing (sec. 515)...............        (58,654,000)       (128,640,000)       (128,640,000)       (+69,986,000)  ..................
            Multi-family housing quarantees (sec.                                                                                                       
             538)...................................  ..................  ..................        (19,700,000)       (+19,700,000)       (+19,700,000)
            Site loans (sec. 524)...................           (600,000)           (600,000)           (600,000)  ..................  ..................
            Self-help housing land development fund.           (600,000)           (587,000)           (587,000)           (-13,000)  ..................
            Credit sales of acquired property.......        (50,000,000)        (25,004,000)        (25,004,000)       (-24,996,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations............     (3,459,854,000)     (4,199,832,000)     (3,519,532,000)       (+59,678,000)      (-680,300,000)
        Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                 
            Single family (sec. 502):                                                                                                                   
                Direct..............................         83,000,000         128,100,000         128,100,000         +45,100,000   ..................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.............          6,210,000           6,900,000           5,290,000            -920,000          -1,610,000 
            Housing repair (sec. 504)...............         11,081,000          10,308,000          10,308,000            -773,000   ..................
            Farm labor (sec. 514)...................          6,885,000           7,388,000           7,388,000            +503,000   ..................
            Rental housing (sec. 515): Direct.......         28,987,000          68,745,000          68,745,000         +39,758,000   ..................
            Multi-family housing quarantees (sec.                                                                                                       
             538)...................................  ..................  ..................          1,200,000          +1,200,000          +1,200,000 
            Self-help housing land development fund.             17,000              20,000              20,000              +3,000   ..................
            Credit sales of acquired property.......          4,050,000           3,493,000           3,493,000            -557,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies.................        140,230,000         224,954,000         224,544,000         +84,314,000            -410,000 
        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                       
         RHS).......................................        366,205,000         354,785,000         354,785,000         -11,420,000   ..................
        Rental assistance program:                                                                                                                      
            (Sec. 521)..............................        487,970,000         535,497,000         535,497,000         +47,527,000   ..................
            (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)).....................          5,900,000           5,900,000           5,900,000   ..................  ..................
            Convert from HUD's section 8 contracts                                                                                                      
             to USDA's section 521..................  ..................         52,000,000   ..................  ..................        -52,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total, Rental assistance program....        493,870,000         593,397,000         541,397,000         +47,527,000         -52,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund.      1,000,305,000       1,173,136,000       1,120,726,000        +120,421,000         -52,410,000 
                    (Loan authorization)............     (3,459,854,000)     (4,199,832,000)     (3,519,532,000)       (+59,678,000)      (-680,300,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help housing grants \6\.........         26,000,000   ..................         26,000,000   ..................        +26,000,000 
    Rural community fire protection grants..........  ..................          2,000,000           1,285,000          +1,285,000            -715,000 
    Rural housing assistance program................        130,433,000   ..................  ..................       -130,433,000   ..................
    Rural housing assistance grants.................  ..................         70,900,000          45,720,000         +45,720,000         -25,180,000 
    Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)......         (1,200,000)  ..................         (1,200,000)  ..................        (+1,200,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and payments.................        156,433,000          72,900,000          73,005,000         -83,428,000            +105,000 
    RHS expenses:                                                                                                                                       
        Administrative expenses.....................         60,743,000          58,804,000          58,804,000          -1,939,000   ..................
        (Transfer from RHIF)........................       (366,205,000)       (354,785,000)       (354,785,000)       (-11,420,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RHS expenses.......................       (426,948,000)       (413,589,000)       (413,589,000)       (-13,359,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Housing Service..............      1,217,481,000       1,304,840,000       1,252,535,000         +35,054,000         -52,305,000 
              (Loan authorization)..................     (3,459,854,000)     (4,199,832,000)     (3,519,532,000)       (+59,678,000)      (-680,300,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:                                                                                                                     
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:                                                                                                        
        (Loan authorization)........................        (37,544,000)        (35,000,000)        (40,000,000)        (+2,456,000)        (+5,000,000)
        Loan subsidy................................         17,270,000          16,888,000          19,200,000          +1,930,000          +2,312,000 
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RBCS)..  ..................          3,482,000           3,482,000          +3,482,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development Loan Fund........         17,270,000          20,370,000          22,682,000          +5,412,000          +2,312,000 
    Rural Economic Development Loans Program                                                                                                            
     Account:                                                                                                                                           
        (Loan authorization)........................        (12,865,000)        (25,000,000)        (12,865,000)  ..................       (-12,135,000)
        Direct subsidy..............................          2,830,000   ..................          3,076,000            +246,000          +3,076,000 
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RBCS)..            654,000   ..................  ..................           -654,000   ..................
        By transfer from cushion of credit payments.  ..................         (5,978,000)  ..................  ..................        (-5,978,000)
    Alternative Agricultural Research and                                                                                                               
     Commercialization Revolving Fund...............          7,000,000          10,000,000          10,000,000          +3,000,000   ..................
    Rural cooperative development grants............  ..................          3,000,000           3,000,000          +3,000,000   ..................
    Rural business-cooperative assistance \7\.......         51,400,000   ..................  ..................        -51,400,000   ..................
    RBCS expenses:                                                                                                                                      
        Salaries and expenses.......................         25,680,000          27,482,000          25,680,000   ..................         -1,802,000 
        (Transfer from RDLFP).......................  ..................         (3,482,000)         (3,482,000)        (+3,482,000)  ..................
        (Transfer from REDLP).......................           (654,000)  ..................  ..................          (-654,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RBCS expenses......................        (26,334,000)        (30,964,000)        (29,162,000)        (+2,828,000)        (-1,802,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.        104,834,000          60,852,000          64,438,000         -40,396,000          +3,586,000 
              (By transfer).........................           (654,000)         (9,460,000)         (3,482,000)        (+2,828,000)        (-5,978,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................        (50,409,000)        (60,000,000)        (52,865,000)        (+2,456,000)        (-7,135,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:                                                                                                                                
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications                                                                                                        
     Loans Program Account:                                                                                                                             
        Loan authorizations:                                                                                                                            
            Direct loans:                                                                                                                               
                Electric 5 percent..................       (125,000,000)       (125,000,000)       (125,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                Telephone 5 percent.................        (75,000,000)        (40,000,000)        (52,756,000)       (-22,244,000)       (+12,756,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (200,000,000)       (165,000,000)       (177,756,000)       (-22,244,000)       (+12,756,000)
            Treasury rates:                                                                                                                             
                Electric............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                Telephone...........................       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)  ..................  ..................
            Muni-rate: Electric.....................       (525,000,000)       (400,000,000)       (500,000,000)       (-25,000,000)      (+100,000,000)
            FFB loans:                                                                                                                                  
                Electric, regular...................       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)       (300,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                Telephone...........................       (120,000,000)       (120,000,000)       (120,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................       (420,000,000)       (420,000,000)       (420,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations........     (1,445,000,000)     (1,285,000,000)     (1,397,756,000)       (-47,244,000)      (+112,756,000)
        Loan subsidies:                                                                                                                                 
            Direct loans:                                                                                                                               
                Electric 5 percent..................          3,625,000           9,325,000           9,325,000          +5,700,000   ..................
                Telephone 5 percent.................          1,193,000           1,568,000           2,068,000            +875,000            +500,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................          4,818,000          10,893,000          11,393,000          +6,575,000            +500,000 
            Treasury rates:                                                                                                                             
                Electric............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                Telephone...........................             60,000              60,000              60,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal..........................             60,000              60,000              60,000   ..................  ..................
            Muni-rate: electric.....................         28,245,000          16,880,000          21,100,000          -7,145,000          +4,220,000 
            FFB loans: Electric, regular............          2,790,000           2,760,000           2,760,000             -30,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies.................         35,913,000          30,593,000          35,313,000            -600,000          +4,720,000 
        RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                      
         RUS).......................................         29,982,000          34,398,000          29,982,000   ..................         -4,416,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Electrification and                                                                                                              
           Telecommunications Loans Program Account.         65,895,000          64,991,000          65,295,000            -600,000            +304,000 
              (Loan authorization)..................     (1,445,000,000)     (1,285,000,000)     (1,397,756,000)       (-47,244,000)      (+112,756,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:                                                                                                               
        (Loan authorization)........................       (175,000,000)       (175,000,000)       (175,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Direct loan subsidy.........................          2,328,000           3,710,000           3,710,000          +1,382,000   ..................
        RTP administrative expenses (transfer to                                                                                                        
         RUS).......................................          3,500,000           3,000,000           3,000,000            -500,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................          5,828,000           6,710,000           6,710,000            +882,000   ..................
    Distance learning and medical link grants and                                                                                                       
     loans:                                                                                                                                             
        (Loan authorization)........................       (150,000,000)       (150,000,000)       (150,000,000)  ..................  ..................
        Direct loan subsidy.........................          1,530,000              30,000              30,000          -1,500,000   ..................
        Grants......................................          7,470,000          20,970,000          12,000,000          +4,530,000          -8,970,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................          9,000,000          21,000,000          12,030,000          +3,030,000          -8,970,000 
    Rural utilities assistance program \7\..........        566,935,000   ..................  ..................       -566,935,000   ..................
    RUS expenses:                                                                                                                                       
        Salaries and expenses.......................         33,195,000          33,000,000          33,000,000            -195,000   ..................
        (Transfer from RETLP).......................        (29,982,000)        (34,398,000)        (29,982,000)  ..................        (-4,416,000)
        (Transfer from RTP).........................         (3,500,000)         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)          (-500,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RUS expenses.......................        (66,677,000)        (70,398,000)        (65,982,000)          (-695,000)        (-4,416,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Rural Utilities Service............        680,853,000         125,701,000         117,035,000        -563,818,000          -8,666,000 
              (By transfer).........................        (33,482,000)        (37,398,000)        (32,982,000)          (-500,000)        (-4,416,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................     (1,770,000,000)     (1,610,000,000)     (1,722,756,000)       (-47,244,000)      (+112,756,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, title III, Rural Economic and                                                                                                          
           Community Development Programs...........      2,003,756,000       2,180,559,000       2,078,855,000         +75,099,000        -101,704,000 
              (By transfer).........................       (400,341,000)       (401,643,000)       (391,249,000)        (-9,092,000)       (-10,394,000)
              (Loan authorization)..................     (5,280,263,000)     (5,869,832,000)     (5,295,153,000)       (+14,890,000)      (-574,679,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition                                                                                                       
 and Consumer Services..............................            454,000             560,000             454,000   ..................           -106,000 
Food and Consumer Service:                                                                                                                              
    Child nutrition programs........................      3,219,544,000       2,617,375,000       2,617,675,000        -601,869,000            +300,000 
        Discretionary spending......................  ..................         14,000,000   ..................  ..................        -14,000,000 
        Transfer from section 32....................      5,433,753,000       5,151,391,000       5,151,391,000        -282,362,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs...........      8,653,297,000       7,782,766,000       7,769,066,000        -884,231,000         -13,700,000 
    Special supplemental nutrition program for                                                                                                          
     women, infants, and children (WIC).............      3,805,807,000       4,108,000,000       3,927,600,000        +121,793,000        -180,400,000 
        Reserve.....................................  ..................       (100,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-100,000,000)
    Food stamp program:                                                                                                                                 
        Expenses....................................     26,264,029,000      23,747,479,000      23,747,479,000      -2,516,550,000   ..................
        Reserve.....................................        100,000,000       2,500,000,000       1,000,000,000        +900,000,000      -1,500,000,000 
        Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico........      1,174,000,000       1,204,000,000       1,204,000,000         +30,000,000   ..................
        The emergency food assistance program \8\...         80,000,000         100,000,000         100,000,000         +20,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp program.................     27,618,029,000      27,551,479,000      26,051,479,000      -1,566,550,000      -1,500,000,000 
    Commodity assistance program....................        166,000,000         272,165,000         148,600,000         -17,400,000        -123,565,000 
    Food donations programs for selected groups:                                                                                                        
        Needy family program........................          1,250,000   ..................          1,165,000             -85,000          +1,165,000 
        Elderly feeding program.....................        140,000,000   ..................        140,000,000   ..................       +140,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food donations programs \9\........        141,250,000   ..................        141,165,000             -85,000        +141,165,000 
    Food program administration.....................        106,128,000         105,501,000         107,719,000          +1,591,000          +2,218,000 
    The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion                                                                                                       
     \10\...........................................  ..................          2,499,000   ..................  ..................         -2,499,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Consumer Service..............     40,490,511,000      39,822,410,000      38,145,629,000      -2,344,882,000      -1,676,781,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs.......     40,490,965,000      39,822,970,000      38,146,083,000      -2,344,882,000      -1,676,887,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
  TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
Foreign Agricultural Service:                                                                                                                           
    Direct appropriation \11\.......................        131,295,000         146,549,000         132,367,000          +1,072,000         -14,182,000 
    (Transfer from export loans)....................         (3,231,000)         (3,327,000)         (3,231,000)  ..................           (-96,000)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)..................         (1,035,000)         (1,066,000)         (1,066,000)           (+31,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program level..........................       (135,561,000)       (150,942,000)       (136,664,000)        (+1,103,000)       (-14,278,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program Account:                                                                                                                         
    Title I--Credit sales:                                                                                                                              
        Program level...............................       (240,805,000)       (123,149,000)       (247,530,000)        (+6,725,000)      (+124,381,000)
            Direct loans............................       (226,900,000)       (112,899,000)       (226,900,000)  ..................      (+114,001,000)
            Ocean freight differential..............         13,905,000          10,250,000          20,630,000          +6,725,000         +10,380,000 
    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...............................        (29,500,000)        (30,000,000)        (30,000,000)          (+500,000)  ..................
        Appropriation...............................         29,500,000          30,000,000          30,000,000            +500,000   ..................
    Loan subsidies..................................        185,589,000          87,869,000         176,596,000          -8,993,000         +88,727,000 
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                                                              
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).....          1,035,000           1,066,000           1,066,000             +31,000   ..................
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).......            745,000             815,000             815,000             +70,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................          1,780,000           1,881,000           1,881,000            +101,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:                                                                                                                        
              Program level.........................     (1,107,305,000)       (990,149,000)     (1,114,530,000)        (+7,225,000)      (+124,381,000)
              Appropriation.........................      1,067,774,000         967,000,000       1,066,107,000          -1,667,000         +99,107,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account:                                                                                                                       
    Loan guarantees: Short-term export credit.......     (3,500,000,000)     (5,500,000,000)     (5,500,000,000)    (+2,000,000,000)  ..................
    Loan subsidy....................................        390,305,000         527,546,000         527,546,000        +137,241,000   ..................
    Emerging markets export credit..................  ..................       (200,000,000)       (200,000,000)      (+200,000,000)  ..................
    Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):                                                                                                               
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).....          3,231,000           3,327,000           3,231,000   ..................            -96,000 
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).......            589,000             648,000             589,000   ..................            -59,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account...        394,125,000         531,521,000         531,366,000        +137,241,000            -155,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and                                                                                                        
           Related Programs.........................      1,593,194,000       1,645,070,000       1,729,840,000        +136,646,000         +84,770,000 
              (By transfer).........................         (4,266,000)         (4,393,000)         (4,297,000)           (+31,000)           (-96,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG                                                                                                        
                   ADMINISTRATION                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
       DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
            Food and Drug Administration                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.........        819,971,000         750,922,000         843,971,000         +24,000,000         +93,049,000 
    Prescription drug user fee act \12\.............        (87,528,000)        (91,204,000)        (91,204,000)        (+3,676,000)  ..................
    Mammography clinics user fee \12\...............        (13,403,000)        (13,966,000)        (13,966,000)          (+563,000)  ..................
    New proposed user fees \12\.....................  ..................       (131,643,000)  ..................  ..................      (-131,643,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program level..........................       (920,902,000)       (987,735,000)       (949,141,000)       (+28,239,000)       (-38,594,000)
Buildings and facilities............................         21,350,000          22,900,000          22,900,000          +1,550,000   ..................
Rental payments.....................................         46,294,000          46,294,000          46,294,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug Administration...........        887,615,000         820,116,000         913,165,000         +25,550,000         +93,049,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
             DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm                                                                                                      
 Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation.....         10,290,000           7,728,000           7,728,000          -2,562,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
                INDEPENDENT AGENCIES                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Commodity Futures Trading Commission................         55,101,000          60,101,000          60,101,000          +5,000,000   ..................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on                                                                                                               
 administrative expenses)...........................        (37,478,000)        (34,423,000)        (34,423,000)        (-3,055,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and                                                                                                    
       Drug Administration..........................        953,006,000         887,945,000         980,994,000         +27,988,000         +93,049,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
         TITLE VII--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
              DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
                 Farm Service Agency                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Emergency conservation program......................         25,000,000   ..................  ..................        -25,000,000   ..................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-18)........         23,000,000   ..................  ..................        -23,000,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
       Natural Resources Conservation Service                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Watershed and flood prevention operations...........         63,000,000   ..................  ..................        -63,000,000   ..................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-18)........        245,000,000   ..................  ..................       -245,000,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
               Rural Utilities Service                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-18)........          4,000,000   ..................  ..................         -4,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title VII: New budget (obligational)                                                                                                       
       authority....................................        360,000,000   ..................  ..................       -360,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Grand total:                                                                                                                                      
          New budget (obligational) authority.......     53,889,409,000      52,302,190,000      50,684,701,000      -3,204,708,000      -1,617,489,000 
              Appropriations........................    (53,801,409,000)    (52,302,190,000)    (50,684,701,000)    (-3,116,708,000)    (-1,617,489,000)
              Emergency appropriations..............        (88,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (-88,000,000)  ..................
          (By transfer).............................       (614,387,000)       (617,360,000)       (606,811,000)        (-7,576,000)       (-10,549,000)
          (Loan authorization)......................    (11,860,987,000)    (14,201,660,000)    (13,735,806,000)    (+1,874,819,000)      (-465,854,000)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...       (144,697,000)       (142,036,000)       (142,036,000)        (-2,661,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                   RECAPITULATION                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Title I--Agricultural programs......................      7,717,934,000       6,943,651,000       6,921,331,000        -796,603,000         -22,320,000 
Title II--Conservation programs.....................        770,554,000         821,995,000         827,598,000         +57,044,000          +5,603,000 
Titlte III--Rural economic and community development                                                                                                    
 programs...........................................      2,003,756,000       2,180,559,000       2,078,855,000         +75,099,000        -101,704,000 
Title IV--Domestic food programs....................     40,490,965,000      39,822,970,000      38,146,083,000      -2,344,882,000      -1,676,887,000 
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs....      1,593,194,000       1,645,070,000       1,729,840,000        +136,646,000         +84,770,000 
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug                                                                                                            
 Administration.....................................        953,006,000         887,945,000         980,994,000         +27,988,000         +93,049,000 
Title VII--Emergency Appropriations (Public Law 105-                                                                                                    
 18)................................................        360,000,000   ..................  ..................       -360,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, new budget (obligational) authority....     53,889,409,000      52,302,190,000      50,684,701,000      -3,204,708,000      -1,617,489,000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under Departmental Administration in fiscal year 1997.                                                                                       
\2\ In addition, $41,000,000 is anticipated from Farm Bill direct appropriations.                                                                       
\3\ In addition to appropriation.                                                                                                                       
\4\ Budget proposes to fund this account under Conservation Operations.                                                                                 
\5\ Budget proposes to fund technical assistance for WFPO under Conservation Operations.                                                                
\6\ Budget proposes to fund this account under the Rural Housing Assistance program.                                                                    
\7\ The Administration proposed funding for this account under the name ``Rural community advancement program''.                                        
\8\ Program created in Welfare Reform.                                                                                                                  
\9\ Budget proposes to include funding for these programs under the Commodity Assistance Program in fiscal year 1998.                                   
\10\ $2,218,000 included under Food Program Administration in fiscal year 1997.                                                                         
\11\ Includes $10,000,000 shift from mandatory spending for IRM activities.                                                                             
\12\ President's budget proposes collections to be used as revenues.                                                                                    



