[House Report 106-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-619

======================================================================



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

                                _______
                                

  May 16, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4461]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2001.

                                                        SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    FY 2001 recommendation compared with
                                                                  FY 2000            FY 2001           FY 2001     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation \1\      estimates      recommendation        FY 2000
                                                                                                                      appropriation    FY 2001 estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs.............................    $35,436,305,000   $34,740,299,000   $34,483,976,000      -$952,329,000      -$256,323,000
Title II--Conservation Programs............................        804,158,000       878,010,000       812,811,000         +8,653,000        -65,199,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development              2,187,507,000     2,587,610,000     2,407,744,000       +220,237,000       -179,866,000
 Programs..................................................
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs...........................     35,044,106,000    36,264,658,000    35,230,359,000       +186,253,000     -1,034,299,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs...........      1,055,669,000     1,090,765,000     1,049,364,000         -6,305,000        -41,401,000
Title VI--FDA and Related Agencies.........................      1,112,011,000     1,283,255,000     1,171,255,000        +59,244,000       -112,000,000
Title VII--General Provisions..............................          2,250,000                 0       119,000,000       +116,750,000       +119,000,000
Title VIII.................................................      8,670,540,000                 0                 0     -8,670,540,000                  0
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................     84,312,546,000    76,844,597,000    75,274,509,000     -9,038,037,000     -1,570,088,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106-113.

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$14,491,000,000, which is $545,910,000 more than the amount 
available in fiscal year 2000 and $1,026,071,000 less than the 
budget request.
    In this report, all references to enacted fiscal year 2000 
appropriations levels represent the amounts enacted in Public 
Law 106-78, as reduced by 0.38 percent pursuant to Public Law 
106-113.
    The Committee's recommendations for fiscal year 2001 assume 
enactment of fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding for 
Agriculture programs and activities, as contained in House 
action on the bill H.R. 3908 as passed the House of 
Representatives on March 30, 2000.

                              Introduction

    The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives 
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture 
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of 
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat 
and poultry supply.
    This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our 
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in 
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure 
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than 
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of 
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for nearly 275 million 
Americans and many more people overseas.
    Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest 
priorities. The bill provides funding for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Office of the Chief Economist, the Economic Research Service, 
the Food and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service for food safety related activities.
    The rural development programs funded in this bill provide 
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic 
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental 
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future 
generations.
    In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous 
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly 
complex market in commodity trading.
    To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and 
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more 
difficult as the effort to preserve the budget surplus 
continues. There are very few program increases in this bill. 
Many of the accounts are at current levels of spending or 
decreased from the previous fiscal year.
    In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by 
allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee's recommended program levels 
are based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on 
mandatory programs.
    Program Priorities/Loan Targeting.--The Committee will 
expect the Department to focus exclusively on economic need 
when attempting to target increased lending under various farm 
loan and rural housing loan and assistance programs.

                        constitutional authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

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

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

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

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

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

2000 appropriation \1\..................................      $2,835,000
2001 budget estimate....................................       2,914,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,836,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................          +1,000
    2001 budget estimate................................         -78,000

\1\ Excludes $12,600,000 for development and implementation of a common 
computing environment which is shown under ``Common Computing 
Environment''.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,836,000, an increase of $1,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $78,000 
below the budget request.
    Administrative Provision.--The Committee is concerned that 
the Department continues to establish programs that are not 
requested in the budget or described in any communication to 
Congress. Programs described as ``outreach'' and ``community 
food security'' have been established with no explanation to 
the Committees on Appropriations. Of further concern is the use 
of the salaries and expenses accounts of the Farm Service 
Agency, the Natural Resources and Conservation Service and the 
Rural Development missions to fund these programs with no 
request or notice of reprogramming to the Committees.
    In addition, the Committee has received reports from USDA 
employees that personnel on the Department payroll are being 
temporarily assigned outside the Department to duties that do 
not support USDA missions. Questions on these issues that were 
submitted to the Department on February 16 have gone 
unanswered.
    In most cases, the Committee has not provided the requested 
increases in salary and expense accounts. This is due mainly to 
a very tight budget situation. However, the Committee will not 
be able to support any increases in salary and expense accounts 
until the Department answers the questions submitted by the 
Committee and addresses the Committee's concerns about 
diversion of funds from core mission areas.
    State Office Colocation.--The Committee considers any 
reallocation of resources related to the colocation of state 
offices scheduled for 2001 to be subject to the Committee's 
reprogramming procedures.
    Trade Adjustment Package for Lamb.--On January 13, 2000, 
the Administration announced a trade adjustment package for 
lamb. The Committee directs the Secretary to report on the 
progress of implementing the provisions of this trade 
adjustment package not later than January 13, 2001, which will 
be one year from the date the package was announced.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to work with other 
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments 
of Defense, Interior, Energy, and Transportation, the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the General Services 
Administration to maximize the use of ethanol, biodiesel and 
other agricultural-based fuels.
    The Committee expects the Department to integrate various 
agency research, food safety, and regulatory functions to 
develop a unified effort to respond to consumer safety and 
environmental concerns while providing sufficient information 
that would allow consumers to make informed choices about the 
production and consumption of bioengineered foods. Any 
regulatory decision should be based on sound, verifiable 
science. The Committee also expects the Department to 
coordinate its activities with those of the Food and Drug 
Administration to provide a unified approach across agency 
jurisdictions.
    The Committee has received several requests for some of the 
programs that were highlighted in the President's farm safety 
net proposal including the farmland protection program, 
wildlife habitat incentives program, environmental quality 
incentives program, and the wetlands reserve program. The 
administration did not submit any legislative proposal to 
reauthorize these programs until May 3, 2000. The Committee 
will be in a better position to deal with these requests for 
funds when the authorizing committee has had an opportunity to 
act on the administration's proposed farm safety net program.
    The Committee is concerned about the number of ongoing 
business process reengineering projects currently underway and 
projected to be started in fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
notes that the Department is spending more than $20,000,000 on 
such projects. The Committee encourages the Department to focus 
their efforts on projects that show the most value to the 
county-based agencies.
    The Committee is concerned about rising numbers of criminal 
acts targeting animal and plant research facilities. The 
Secretary is directed to report to the Committee on the extent 
of animal and plant terrorism incidents at USDA funded 
facilities, the consequence of these activities on research, 
recommendations for improving security at federally funded 
facilities, and guidance on the appropriate federal role in 
response to such criminal activities. This report shall be 
submitted to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
on Agriculture of both the House and Senate by March 31, 2001.
    The Committee shares the concern expressed by African-
American producers that programs of research, extension, 
marketing, rural development, and international trade have not 
adequately responded to the unique needs of these producers. 
Recognizing that there are many opportunities to link African-
American farmers with other farmers in Africa, and to establish 
long-term cooperative relationships in addition to project 
specific research activities between the 1890 Colleges and 
Tuskegee Institute with their counterparts in Africa, the 
Committee directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive 
report to be submitted to the Committee no later than February 
1, 2001, detailing outreach efforts by the agencies of the 
Department to these two producer groups, and describing what 
additional resources may be necessary to develop and maintain 
such cooperative programs. This report shall also detail 
whatever opportunities may exist for the provision of 
assistance to these cooperative programs through the 
monetization of necessary food assistance provided to the 
people of Africa through governments or Private Voluntary 
Organizations, as appropriate.
    The Committee is aware of interest in providing programs 
similar to the school lunch program and the WIC program in 
needy areas around the world. The Committee applauds the 
efforts of the Department, in the use of Section 416(b) and 
Food for Progress, and its partners, including the U.N. World 
Food Program in providing such assistance where appropriate. 
The Committee directs the Department to develop a report 
detailing where such efforts currently occur, the level of 
assistance provided at each location by the United States 
(either through the Department or the Agency for International 
Development) and other donors, and on the feasibility of 
conducting pilot projects in those countries which might be 
able to sustain such a program after a reasonable period of 
support from the United States and other donors. This report 
should indicate what level of assistance would be needed in 
addition to other demands for Section 416(b) and PL 480 Title 
II commodities.
    The Committee is concerned that extensive use of 
contracting outside the Department for administrative and core 
mission activities may not yield the best cost benefit or the 
best customer benefit in terms of dealing with experienced 
career federal personnel. Customers of federal programs such as 
those administered by the Rural Development Services and the 
Farm Service Agency often have needs and circumstances that are 
not dealt with in the private sector. The Committee directs the 
Department to make cost comparisons of the use of private 
contractors with federal employee performance and to employ the 
most efficient organization process as described in OMB 
Circular A-76. The Committee also directs the Department to 
solicit input from federal employees in agencies affected by 
contracting out in order to ensure the expertise of those 
employees is a part of any decision made by management. The 
Committee also directs the Department to report on its 
contracting out policies, including the agency budgets for 
contracting out, with its annual budget submission for fiscal 
year 2002.

                          Executive Operations

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

                     Office of the Chief Economist




2000 appropriation....................................        $6,408,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         8,612,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,408,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -2,204,000


    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, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture, and 
is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and 
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop 
outlook and situation material within the Department.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $6,408,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $2,204,000 
below the budget request.

                       National Appeals Division




2000 appropriation....................................       $11,707,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        12,610,000
Provided in the bill..................................        11,718,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................           +11,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................          -892,000


    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the 
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $11,718,000, an increase of $11,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$892,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is very concerned by the disproportionate 
share of regional hearing officer decisions favoring producers 
that are overturned by the Director of the National Appeals 
Division (NAD). Recent evidence suggests that Director Review 
Determinations that support the Department position far outpace 
those that support the producer position. The Committee is 
further concerned by media reports that the Department may have 
resisted efforts to bring this information to light and make it 
available to the public. The actions of the NAD have called 
into question the integrity of the appeals process and raised 
concerns about the possibility of bias against producers. 
Therefore, the Committee directs NAD to track and make 
available to the public information about Director Review 
Determinations. The information should indicate whether the 
request for Director Review was submitted by the appellant or 
the head of an agency, and should indicate the number of 
Director Review Determinations that are made in favor of the 
Department and the number that are made in favor of the 
producer. The Committee directs the USDA to submit a report of 
this information to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate no later than February 
1, 2001.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis




2000 appropriation....................................        $6,581,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         6,765,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,581,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................          -184,000


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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,581,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$184,000 below the budget request.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer





2000 appropriation....................................        $6,046,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        14,680,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,051,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +4,005,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -4,629,000


    Section 808 of P.L. 104-208 required the establishment of a 
Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. Pursuant 
to this Act, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was 
established in August 1996, to provide policy guidance, 
leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department's 
information management and information technology investment 
activities in support of USDA program delivery. The Office 
provides long-range planning guidance, implements measures to 
ensure that technology investments are economical and 
effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources 
Management projects, and implements standards to promote 
information exchange and technical interoperability. The Office 
also provides telecommunications and ADP services to USDA 
agencies through the National Information Technology Center 
with locations in Ft. Collins, Colorado and Kansas City, 
Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to 
the Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, 
Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer and Executive Operations.
    Additionally, the Office of the Chief Information Officer 
is responsible for certain activities under the Department's 
Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $10,051,000, an increase 
of $4,005,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $4,629,000 below the budget request.cc
    The Committee is concerned that USDA's computer systems 
could be vulnerable to computer hackers that could expose 
farmers, ranchers, and/or homeowners who interact with USDA 
electronically or whose personal/business information is 
contained in an electronic USDA database as well as the more 
than 400,000 federal employees who are part of USDA's payroll 
system to become victims of computer crime. As a result, the 
Committee has provided an increase of $4,005,000 to alleviate 
some of those concerns.
    The Committee supports USDA's request of $1,392,000 for a 
central cyber-security program as well as $1,280,000 to 
strengthen the information risk management program. The balance 
of the increase, $1,333,000, is to fund an information and 
telecommunications security architecture to ensure the 
protection of USDA's vast information resources. The Committee 
directs the Chief Information Officer to keep the Committee 
updated, on a routine basis, as these programs are implemented.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer





2000 appropriation....................................        $4,783,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         6,465,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,783,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -1,682,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $4,783,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$1,682,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has included bill language that directs the 
Chief Financial Officer to actively market the cross-servicing 
activities of the National Finance Center.
    The Committee recommends language that allows the Secretary 
to transfer funds provided in this Act and other available 
unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, with the 
approval of the agency administrator, to the Working Capital 
Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and 
information technology services of the National Finance Center 
in New Orleans, LA, and the National Information Technology 
Center in Kansas City, MO and Ft. Collins, CO.

                      Common Computing Environment





2000 appropriation \1\................................       $12,600,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        75,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        25,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +12,400,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -50,000,000


\1\ In FY 2000, funding for the Common Computing Environment was
  included in the ``Office of the Secretary''.

    The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use 
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer 
information sharing among agencies of the Department. Section 
808 of P.L. 104-208 requires USDA to maximize the value of 
information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency 
and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in 
1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been 
working to restructure county field offices, modernize and 
integrate business approaches and replace the current, aging 
information systems with a modern Common Computing Environment 
that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff 
efficiencies.

                          committee provisions

    For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $25,000,000, an increase of 
$12,400,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and 
a decrease of $50,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to report to the 
Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the 
implementation of the Common Computing Environment beginning in 
January 2001.
    The CCE plan for fiscal year 2000 included $3,000,000 to 
address Farm Service Agency connectivity issues. The Committee 
notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental 
appropriations bill included $38,500,000 to address Farm 
Service Agency computer problems including funds to address the 
connectivity issue. The Committee directs the Department to 
ensure that any funds obligated out of the CCE account for FSA 
connectivity should be reimbursed.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration





2000 appropriation....................................          $613,000
2001 budget estimate..................................           629,000
Provided in the bill..................................           613,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................           -16,000


    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, ethics, personnel management, 
equal opportunity and civil rights programs, and other general 
administrative functions. Additionally, the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for 
certain activities financed under the Department's Working 
Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$613,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $16,000 below the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments





2000 appropriation....................................      $140,343,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       182,747,000
Provided in the bill..................................       150,343,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +10,000,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -32,404,000


    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to 
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space 
and for related services.
    The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to 
agencies occupying GAS-controlled space was established by the 
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to 
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial 
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review 
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an 
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect. The cost 
of newly leased space reflects current private sector market 
rates. The leases are competitively acquired in close 
coordination with USDA and other customer agencies.
    Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the 
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity 
provides departmental staff and support services to operate, 
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since 
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been 
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 
and improving the headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1 
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately 
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately 
8,000 employees. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations of 
the Beltsville Office Facility.
    Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the 
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to 
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, 
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority 
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and 
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To 
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of 
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic 
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building. During FY 1998, 
the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was 
constructed with funds appropriated to the Department and is 
located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. 
Occupancy of the George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, 
Maryland, was substantially completed during 1999. By summer 
2000, the center will be fully occupied, housing about 1,200 
employees.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$150,343,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $32,404,000 
below the budget request.
    Included in this amount is $125,542,000 for rental payments 
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent 
of this appropriation to or from another agency's 
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will 
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor 
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for 
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not 
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account:

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                    2000     2001 budget     Committee
                                  estimate      request   recommendation

Rental Payments...............     $115,542     $125,542       $125,542
Building Operations...........       24,801       31,205         24,801
Strategic Space Plan..........  ...........       26,000  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................      140,343      182,747        150,343


                     Hazardous Materials Management





2000 appropriation....................................       $15,700,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        30,073,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,700,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -14,373,000


    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 materials as private businesses. The Department is 
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for 
hazardous materials in areas covered by the Department or 
within departmental jurisdiction.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $15,700,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $14,373,000 
below the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration





2000 appropriation....................................       $34,708,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        40,740,000
Provided in the bill..................................        34,708,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -6,032,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $34,708,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $6,032,000 below the 
budget request.

              Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers




2000 appropriation....................................        $3,000,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -7,000,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2000, the 
Department provided $5,200,000 from the Fund for Rural America 
for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers program. 
The Department has informed the Committee that funds have been 
obligated in prior years from the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, the Rural Development mission area and 
the Farm Service Agency for outreach activities such as those 
conducted by this program. The Department has also informed the 
Committee that the Department has authority to make further 
obligations from these agencies for outreach activities.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations





2000 appropriation....................................        $3,568,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         3,778,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,568,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................          -210,000


    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.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account:

                         CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2000         2001      Committee
                                     enacted      estimate    provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Activities..........         $857         $983         $857
Intergovernmental Affairs........          470          483          470
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................        1,327        1,466        1,327
                                  ======================================
Agricultural Marketing Service...          176          181          176
Agricultural Research Service....          129          133          129
Animal and Plant Health                    101          104          101
 Inspection Service..............
Cooperative State Research,                120          124          120
 Education, and Extension Service
Farm Service Agency..............          355          366          355
Food and Nutrition Service.......          270          279          270
Food Safety and Inspection                 309          319          309
 Service.........................
Foreign Agricultural Service.....          183          189          183
Natural Resources Conservation             148          153          148
 Service.........................
Risk Management Agency...........          109          112          109
Rural Business-Cooperative                  52           54           52
 Service.........................
Rural Housing Service............          147          152          147
Rural Utilities Service..........          142          146          142
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................        2,241        2,312        2,241
                                  ======================================
      Total......................        3,568        3,778        3,568
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,568,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and a decrease of $210,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee includes language allowing the transfer of not less 
than $2,241,000 to agencies funded in this Act to maintain 
personnel at the agency level.

                        Office of Communications





2000 appropriation....................................        $8,138,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         9,031,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,138,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................          -893,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $8,138,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $893,000 below the 
budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General





2000 appropriation....................................       $65,097,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        70,214,000
Provided in the bill..................................        65,097,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -5,117,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $65,097,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of 
$5,117,000 below the budget request.
    The Inspector General is directed to undertake an 
investigation of the adequacy of Food Safety and Inspection 
Service financial management and project management, as well as 
the adequacy of management controls in those areas. The 
Committee directs the Inspector General to provide a 
preliminary report no later than March 1, 2001. The 
investigation should ascertain what deficiencies resulted in 
recent inspector shortages and why Anti-Deficiency Act 
violations occurred over the last two years.

                     Office of the General Counsel





2000 appropriation....................................       $29,194,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        32,881,000
Provided in the bill..................................        29,194,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -3,687,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $29,194,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of 
$3,687,000 below the budget request.

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





2000 appropriation....................................          $540,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         1,356,000
Provided in the bill..................................           540,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................          -816,000


    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. The Under Secretary serves as chair of the Biobased 
Products and Bioenergy Coordinating Council of the Department, 
which is responsible for developing a list of biobased products 
to be considered for environmental preferability.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $540,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $816,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee does not recommend providing funds for 
developing a list of biobased products.

                       Economic Research Service





2000 appropriation \1\................................       $65,363,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        55,424,000
Provided in the bill..................................        66,419,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +1,056,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       +10,995,000

\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $1 million to FPA in the Food and
  Nutrition Service.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $66,419,000, an increase of $1,056,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase 
of $10,995,000 above the budget request. The Committee has 
provided $12,195,000 for studies and evaluations work under the 
Food and Nutrition Service. Included in this total is 
$5,700,000 for food stamp, $3,000,000 for child nutrition, and 
$3,495,000 for WIC studies and evaluations. This work is to be 
carried out within the Food and Consumer Economics Division 
which conducts research and analysis on food programs and food 
policy issues. The Committee expects ERS to consult and work 
with the staff at the Food and Nutrition Service as well as 
other agencies to assure that all studies and evaluations are 
meeting the needs of the Department.
    The Committee has provided $1,056,000 to address structural 
changes and concentration in food and agriculture and to 
improve the efficiency of the agriculture sector. The Committee 
has maintained Estimating the Benefits of Increased Food Safety 
at the fiscal year 2000 level.
    In House Report 106-157, the Committee expressed concern 
over the rise in the cost of infant formula since the WIC 
rebate program began, and in the decline in the number of 
infant formula suppliers. The Committee directs the Economic 
Research Service to provide a report by April 15, 2001, on the 
number of suppliers of infant formula in each state, and to 
compare the cost of formula that is included in the WIC rebate 
program versus the cost of formula that is not in the WIC 
rebate program.
    The Committee supports efforts of the Economic Research 
Service to study the economic impact of market concentration. 
The Committee encourages the Service to work with the Anti-
Trust Division at the Department of Justice and the Federal 
Trade Commission as they conduct pre-merger reviews and 
antitrust investigations into agribusiness mergers. ERS should 
share its knowledge and expertise on agribusiness and the 
effects of concentration on small farms and rural communities.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Department to conduct 
a study of the need for more substantial physician education in 
breast-feeding techniques in order to increase the incidence of 
breast-feeding, particularly within the WIC population.
    The Committee directs the Department to conduct a study of 
plate waste in the school nutrition programs and the factors 
associated with it, including ``offer v. serve'' in both 
elementary and secondary schools, scheduling of lunch hours 
(are they too short, are there competing activities that 
interfere with lunch time e.g. recreation time after a meal 
versus before a meal) quality and condition of food.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service





2000 appropriation....................................       $99,333,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       100,615,000
Provided in the bill..................................       100,851,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +1,518,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................          +236,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $100,851,000, an 
increase of $1,518,000 above the amount available in fiscal 
year 2000 and 236,000 above the budget request. Included in 
this amount is $15,000,000 for the Census of Agriculture. The 
Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data 
every five years on all aspects of the agricultural economy.
    Information security is vital to maintain the credibility 
of NASS given the market sensitivity of agency reports released 
to the public, as well as the confidential nature of the data 
collected by NASS from farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. 
The Committee recommends a $1,400,000 increase that was 
included in the budget request that will allow the agency to 
establish a computer security architecture that will 
simultaneously address the technical, managerial, and 
administrative issues associated with NASS information 
security.
    The Committee includes an increase of $800,000 for 
pesticide use surveys to address existing data gaps to more 
accurately assess the impact of chemical use as required by the 
Food Quality Protection Act.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $572,000 for a 
monthly hog survey required by Livestock Mandatory Reporting. 
The monthly survey responds to the industry's need for more 
timely information on hog supplies. Prior to the passage of the 
Livestock Mandatory Reporting amendment, NASS reported a hog 
survey on a quarterly basis.
    The Committee has provided $236,000 to develop and 
implement a weekly cream or milkfat price survey by surveying 
the major buyers or end-users of milkfat. The weekly 
publication of this information will benefit all segments of 
the dairy industry by making publicly available an accurate 
measure of the value of milkfat.
    The Committee assumes all savings included in the budget 
request under NASS.

                     Agricultural Research Service





2000 appropriation....................................      $830,384,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       894,258,000
Provided in the bill..................................       850,384,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +20,000,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -43,874,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $850,384,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$43,874,000 below the budget request.
    Continuing Programs.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of ongoing research projects in addressing 
increasing problems faced by the Nation's food and fiber 
producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2001 at the same funding level 
provided in fiscal year 2000: Comparative Textural Analysis of 
Fresh and Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables; Ecologically-Based 
Technologies for Controlling Ixodes Scapularis and Reducing 
Lyme Disease; Physiology of Strawberry, Blueberry, and Other 
Small Fruit Crops in Sustainable Production Systems; Improving 
Quality of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce by Preventing 
Deterioration in Cold Storage; National Turfgrass Evaluation 
Program; Alternative Crops Research; Lyme Disease at Yale 
University; Floriculture and Nursery Crop Research; Fish 
Diseases; Developing Integrated Weed Management Systems for 
Efficient and Sustainable Sugarcane Production; Disease and 
Insect Control Mechanisms for the Enhancement of Sugarcane 
Germplasm Resistance; Formosan Subterranean Termite Control and 
Research Demonstration Program; Improving Sugarcane 
Productivity by Conventional and Molecular Approaches to 
Genetic Development; Small Fruit Cultural and Genetic Research 
in the Mid-South; Small Fruits Research; Development of Value-
Added Products from Seed Proteins; Biotechnology Research and 
Development Corp. (BRDC); New Crops for Industrial Products; 
Thermomechanical Processing of Natural Polymers; Animal Health 
Consortium; Soybean Diseases; Genetics of Host Resistance to 
Pathogens in Cereal Crops; Risk Assessment for BT Crops 
Research; Postharvest Handling and Mechanization to Minimize 
Damage for Fruits; Germplasm Evaluation and Genetic Improvement 
of Oats and Wild Rice; Wild Rice Breeding and Germplasm 
Improvement; Plant Genetics Research; Mid-West/Mid-South 
Irrigation Research; Watershed Research; Development of Soybean 
Germplasm and Production Systems for High Yield and Drought 
Prone Environments; New England Plant, Soil, and Water 
Research; Golden Nematode Research; Grape Rootstock Research; 
Animal Vaccines Research; Aquaculture Systems (Rainbow Trout) 
Research; Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle and Other 
Non-indigenous Plant Pests in the Western US; Sustainable 
Vineyard Practices Research; Irrigation Water and Crop 
Management to Sustain Productivity and Protect Water Quality; 
Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm; Lettuce Genetics/Breeding 
Research; Organic Minor Crop Research; Post-Harvest and 
Controlled Atmosphere Chamber (Lettuce) Research; Development 
of Genetically Enhanced Fish and Feeds for Aquaculture 
Utilizing Specialized Grains; Germplasm Resources Genetics and 
Physiology of Grass and Legume Seed for Sustainable Cropping 
Systems; Hops Genetics and Breeding for Improved Flavor, 
Agronomic Performance and Pest Resistance; Physiology, 
Biochemistry and Genetic Improvement of Horticultural Crop 
Productivity and Product Quality; Characterization, Detection 
and Control of Viruses Infecting Small Fruit Crops; Biology and 
Management of Foliage and Fruit Diseases of Horticultural 
Crops; Biology and Control of Insect Pests of Horticultural 
Crops; Preservation of Clonal Genetic Resources of Temperate 
Fruit, Nut, and Specialty Crops; Residue Management and Grass 
Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture; Small Fruit 
and Nursery Research; Viticulture Research; Genetics and 
Germplasm Enhancement of Cool Season Food Legumes; Root 
Diseases of Wheat/Barley Research; Potato Research Enhancement; 
Temperate Fruit Flies Research; Behavioral Ecology and 
Management of Crop Insect Pests with Semiochemicals; Biological 
Controls and Agricultural Research; Asian Bird Influenza 
Research; Control of Fungal Pathogens of Small Grains; 
Evaluation of Temperate Legumes and Warm-Season Grass Mixtures 
in Sustainable Production Systems; Improved Peanut Product 
Quality and Bioactive Nutrient Composition with Genetic 
Resources; Peanut Quality Research; Research/Evaluation for 
Registration of Chemicals and Approvals of New Animal Drugs for 
Aquaculture; Rice Research; Aquaculture Research; Harvesting 
and Ginning Technologies for Stripper Cotton; Plant Stress and 
Water Conservation Research.
    Aflatoxin in cotton.--A recognized food safety hazard, 
aflatoxin has caused millions of dollars in crop losses to 
agriculture producers each year. The Committee recognizes the 
promising research the Agricultural Research Service has 
accomplished to eliminate aflatoxin as an agricultural hazard. 
The Committee is providing an increase of $250,000 in FY 2001 
to the ARS Western Cotton Research Laboratory, Phoenix, AZ, for 
expanded research aimed at lowering aflatoxin levels in cotton.
    Agricultural law research.--The National Center for 
Agricultural Law Research and Information is the primary 
contributor of bibliographic agricultural law information to 
the USDA National Agricultural Library. The Committee directs 
the Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in fiscal 
year 2001 for the National Center for Agricultural Law Research 
located at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
    Animal and plant genomics research.--More rapid and 
efficient methods are required to characterize, identify and 
manipulate useful properties of genes and genomes. These new 
methods or ``genomics'' are critical for developing improved 
crops and livestock that help producers to maximize yields of 
quality products while minimizing environmental degradation and 
production costs. The Committee provides an increase of 
$900,000 for research to be carried out at ARS laboratories in 
Ithaca, NY and Clay Center, Nebraska.
    Animal vaccines.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$900,000 in fiscal year 2001 for expanded research on advanced 
animal vaccines and diagnostic applications jointly carried out 
by ARS the University of Connecticut and the University of 
Missouri.
    Aquaculture initiatives for the mid-Atlantic highlands.--
The Committee recognizes the Agricultural Research Service's 
extensive aquaculture research activities and directs the 
agency to work with Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) headquartered 
at Canaan Valley, WV, in facilitating aquaculture initiatives 
and demonstrations in the Mid-Atlantic highlands. CVI provides 
a forum where small watershed groups, government, industry, and 
the research community can address economic development issues 
affecting the Mid-Atlantic highlands states of Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 in FY 2001 for this aquaculture 
initiative.
    Aquaculture initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic 
Institute.--The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for 
collaborative research between the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Harbor Branch Institute, with participation of 
the Florida State University to pursue new research initiatives 
in the area of aquaculture.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee recognizes the need to 
conduct fish health management research directed at meeting the 
needs of the U.S. aquaculture industry including research on 
improving yields, food quality, disease control, and stress 
tolerance. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research 
Service to continue funding in fiscal year 2001 for research 
activities at the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research 
Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
    Aquaculture fisheries center.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $75,000 for the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the 
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for research related to 
bird predation on farm-raised fish and the development of value 
added products for aquaculture.
    Aquaculture systems.--The Committee recommends an increase 
of $575,000 in fiscal year 2001 for expanded research on 
developing new aquaculture systems focused on rainbow trout in 
cooperation with the University of Connecticut.
    Area-wide IPM.--The Committee supports the USDA initiative 
to develop area-wide pest management programs using 
biointensive IPM approaches and other IPM technology that can 
be used for control of pests as alternatives to chemical 
pesticides that are at risk from FQPA assessment. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,000,000 over the FY 2000 level for 
expanded research on major IPM research and area-wide 
demonstration programs based on the use of biorational and 
biologically-based strategies for control of key pests.
    Asian bird influenza.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $45,000 in fiscal year 2001 for ARS to develop and assess 
baseline data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and 
their migration habits, specifically through increasing the 
number and diversity of wild bird samples obtained and 
analyzed.
    Avian Leukosis--J. Virus.--The Committee is aware of the 
significant accomplishments of the ARS Avian Disease and 
Oncology Laboratory, East Lansing, MI in controlling this virus 
and provides an increase of $250,000 in FY 2001 for expanded 
research of this poultry disease.
    Barley food health benefits research.--The Committee 
recognizes the need to investigate the benefits of barley foods 
to human health. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 
for investigation and documentation of the benefits of barley 
foods to human health, which are requisites to expanded 
domestic and international markets of barley.
    Biobased materials from agricultural commodities.--The 
Committee is aware of important breakthroughs in scientific 
tools and methods that have enabled new, biobased products with 
novel properties for applications previously met only by 
petroleum based or nonbiobased materials. The Committee 
provides an additional $900,000 for expanded research at ARS 
regional utilization centers at Albany, CA; Wyndmoor, PA and 
New Orleans, LA.
    Biobased products.--The Committee expects the Department to 
continue its efforts to support and enhance the listing of 
biobased products for Federal procurement and provides an 
increase of $300,000 within available funds.
    Biodegradable absorbents from pectins.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance for research to develop biobased 
materials from agricultural commodities and by-products using 
biotechnology, biocatalysis and other integrated technologies. 
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to develop 
biodegradable biobased absorbents from pectins to be carried 
out at the ARS research laboratory at Winter Haven, FL.
    Biological controls and agricultural research.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for the Center of 
Biological Controls and the Science Center of Excellence, which 
are being combined into the Center of Excellence in the 
Biological and Chemical Sciences at Florida A&M University.
    Biological control of insects and weeds.--Arthropods, such 
as Silverleaf whitefly, Asian longhorned beetle, Russian wheat 
aphid and others are high priority targets for Integrated Pest 
Management. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to 
develop biologically based arthropod IPM with emphasis on 
formulation and delivery of microbial agents at the ARS Yakima 
research station.
    Cereal crops research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 for expanded research on the quality and improved 
production practices for barley and oats conducted at the 
Cereal Crops Research Laboratory, Madison, WI.
    Chicken genome mapping.The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 in FY 2001 for expanded research on chicken genome 
mapping project being carried out at Beltsville, MD.
    Citrus and horticultural research.--The Committee notes the 
expanded and important mission of the new ARS Ft. Pierce 
research station as well as its past accomplishments carried 
out at the former Orlando, FL location. The Committee provides 
an additional $275,000 for research operations at the Ft. 
Pierce laboratory which is essential to maintain effective 
research necessary to support the citrus and horticultural 
industries.
    Coffee and cocoa research.--The Committee is concerned with 
the infestation of tropical fungal and pest diseases and its 
devastating impact on coffee and cocoa crop production. The 
Committee provides an increase of $120,000 for this important 
disease resistance/alternative crop research project.
    Conversion of agricultural materials from biomass.--The 
Committee supports research efforts to develop and use biobased 
fuel to decrease dependence on imported petroleum, protect the 
environment and improve the rural economy. The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 to the National Center for 
Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL for this 
research.
    Cotton ginning research.--There is an acute need to develop 
new cotton ginning equipment to preserve cotton fibers for 
improved cotton quality. The Committee provides an increase of 
$900,000 above the level available in FY 2000 for the ARS 
cotton ginning research conducted at Las Cruces, NM.
    Diaprepes root weevil (Diaprepes abbreviates).--The 
Committee recognizes the seriousness of the Diaprepes root 
weevil and its impact on citrus, corn, sugarcane, ornamental 
plants, cotton, yucca, papaya, and sweetpotato. It is important 
that this research be continued at the fiscal year 2000 level.
    Emerging diseases.--It is the view of the Committee that 
research on exotic and emerging diseases is an area of high 
priority and that funding proposed for plant and animal 
diseases should be equally allocated.
    Endophyte Research.--There are over 35 million acres of 
endophyte infected tall fescue pastures in the U.S. responsible 
for annual losses to the beef cattle industry. The Committee 
provides an increase of $270,000 for expanded joint research at 
the University of Arkansas, University of Missouri, and Oregon 
State University.
    Floriculture and nursery crops research.--The Committee is 
aware that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than 
10% of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for 
expanded research on this important cash crop. A portion of 
this funding should continue to be allocated through 
cooperative agreements with university partners, including the 
University of California, Cornell University, and Ohio State 
University.
    Food safety research.--The Committee supports expanded 
initiatives to provide a safe food supply for all Americans. 
Additional preharvest research is required to design effective 
programs to control bacteria and parasites carried by animals 
that are pathogenic for humans. Additional food safety research 
is required during postharvest operations at all critical 
points during food processing and storage. The Committee 
provides an additional $1,600,000 for research on: Antibiotic 
resistance ($600,000) at Athens, GA; Ames, IA; and College 
Station, TX; pathogens during preslaughter and transportation 
($400,000) at Lubbock, TX and Clay Center, NE; control plants 
toxins and heavy metals in food crops ($200,000), Beltsville, 
MD; pathogen control in fruits and vegetable ($200,000), 
Albany, CA; and pathogen and residue detection during 
processing and storage ($200,000), Wyndmoor, PA.
    Food Quality Protection Act.--The Committee recognizes the 
Department's responsibilities to find replacement technology 
for currently used pesticides at risk of being phased out after 
EPA review. The Committee provides an additional $300,000 for 
the activities of the Office of Pest Management.
    Formosan termite control.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000, the same amount available in fiscal year 2000, for 
the ongoing formosan termite control and research program at 
the Southern Regional Research Center.
    Fusarium Head Blight.--Generally known as ``scab'', 
Fusarium Head Blight poses an extremely serious threat to all 
classes of wheat and barley in the U.S. The effects of scab are 
mostly manifested as reduced farm yield, lowered test weights, 
and reduced grain quality. The problem is amplified because 
scab infested grain is usually contaminated with vomitoxin, a 
toxic metabolyte produced when the fungal pathogen invades the 
developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing an increase 
of $800,000 in fiscal year 2001 to expand ongoing cooperative 
effort with land-grant universities to control this serious 
threat to the wheat and barley industries.
    Ginning technologies.--The Committee directs that research 
carried out by ARS in cotton ginning harvesting and the 
development of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal 
year 2000 funding levels.
    Glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's disease.--The 
Committee is aware of the devastating Pierce's disease, a 
widespread and lethal disease of grapevines. This disease is 
currently the most production-limiting disease on grapevine. 
Pierce's disease was responsible for $33 million in management 
costs and crop losses in 1999. Methods of control are only 
partially effective and consist of early detection, removal of 
infected vines and management of nearby vegetation that harbor 
insects and pathogens. The disease is spread by the leafhopper 
vector, Glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS). The GWSS feeds at 
the base of grapevines where pruning is destructive. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,100,000 for research to 
combat the GWSS and Pierce's disease on both a short and long-
term basis.
    Golden nematode.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$30,000 to Cornell University to support golden nematode 
research in plant breeding, nematology and activities involving 
seed production and extension.
    Grain Sorghum.--The Committee is committed to ensuring that 
research dollars allocated for specific research areas are 
spent as intended. The Committee directs the Agriculture 
Research Service to report on all research projects related to 
grain sorghum. This report is to include a description of each 
project and how it relates to grain sorghum, any articles 
published as a result of the research, and an outline of 
funding used in the project. The report should be submitted no 
later than February 15, 2001. The Committee expects that all 
research funding appropriated for grain sorghum to be spent to 
the direct benefit of that crop, such as increased production, 
and be developed in coordination with the grain sorghum 
industry.
    Grape rootstock.--Grapes are now the highest value fruit 
crop in the nation and sixth largest crop overall. Most of the 
crop is processed to raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby 
adding enormous value to the crop. The Committee provides an 
increase of $38,000 at Geneva, NY for this vitally needed 
research on grape rootstock development.
    Greenhouse and hydroponics research.--The Committee 
recognizes the need for additional effort in the areas of 
greenhouse and hydroponics research. Additional emphasis is 
necessary to enhance soilless culture systems to optimize 
environmental conditions to enhance plant production and 
quality while reducing pest and disease problems. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,500,000 for ARS research in 
collaboration with the University of Toledo.
    Greenhouse lettuce germplasm, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $38,000 for additional costs associated 
with the preservation, maintenance, and evaluation of 
greenhouse lettuce germplasm.
    Hog Cholera research.--The Committee supports expanded 
research on exotic diseases of livestock and provides an 
increase of $1,300,000 to develop vaccines to prevent the 
outbreak and spread of hog cholera.
    Human nutrition research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research being carried out at the ARS Human Nutrition 
Center at Little Rock, AR and provides an additional $750,000 
for fiscal year 2001 to the Children's Hospital.
    IPM systems for fruits and vegetables.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $400,000 for research on the 
development of improved semiochemical techniques for control of 
insect pests on fruits and vegetables and other crops treated 
with organophosphates and carbamates and for pests under large 
scale eradication or control.
    Invasive species research.--There are more than 30,000 
invasive species in the U.S. The Committee supports the 
Department's efforts to detect and eradicate incipient weed 
populations and manage established species. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 to support this research 
through foreign exploration and host testing of new biocontrol 
agents for weeds.
    Lyme disease research.--Lyme disease is a major health 
threat in the Northeast. Controlling the tick that causes the 
disease is critical to public health. The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in FY 2001 
research on ecologically based technologies for controlling 
ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme disease being coordinated 
at Beltsville, MD, in support of the Northeast Regional Lyme 
Tick Project and in collaboration with Yale University.
    Listeria and E.coli research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of research and new technology developments to 
identify, control and eliminate Listeria monocytogenes and 
E.coli 0157:H7 pathogens contamination in foods. The Committee 
provides an increase of $750,000 for expanded research to 
control and prevent Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat 
and poultry products and E.coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products.
    Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $38,000 in fiscal year 2001 for 
continuing support of the geneticist plant breeder hired last 
year at the ARS research station at Salinas, CA.
    Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 for this sheep-associated 
virus infecting small ruminants. This additional funding will 
be used for research on the development of vaccines critical to 
the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small ruminants at 
the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, and in cooperation with the 
ARS sheep station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State 
University.
    Manure management systems.--The Committee supports 
additional research to improve manure management practices and 
provides an increase of $300,000 to the ARS Florence, SC 
research station to develop improved treatment technologies to 
manage animal waste from swine production to protect water and 
air quality.
    Methyl bromide alternatives research.--The Committee is 
aware of the important research carried out by ARS to develop 
alternatives to methyl bromide which is effectively utilized as 
a soil farming agent and pest control for stored commodities. 
The Committee provides an increase of $1,620,000 for methyl 
bromide research. The Committee expects ARS to use these 
additional funds to support registration requirements of minor 
use pesticides as alternatives to methyl bromide as well as, to 
initiate research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide for 
floriculture crops.
    Microbial pathogens in small watersheds.--The kinds of 
microbial pathogens in small watersheds and their potential 
sources are not well understood. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 to the Pasture Systems and Watershed 
Management Research Laboratory at University Park, PA for the 
technology required to develop effective management strategies 
for the benefit of agricultural livestock producers and other 
landowners in the Northeast.
    Mid-West/Mid-South irrigation.--The Committee is aware of 
the importance of irrigation research in reducing risk and 
increasing yields on the farm. The Committee directs ARS to 
provide an increase of $30,000 in fiscal year 2001 for 
cooperative research into irrigation methods and technologies 
at the University of Missouri Delta Center in Portageville, 
Missouri.
    Mosquito trapping research and West Nile Virus.--Infectious 
diseases transmitted by insects in Connecticut and other 
Northern states have become an increasing concern to public 
health. Mosquito-borne diseases, such as West Nile encephalitis 
and Eastern Equine encephalitis have increased in threat. ARS 
has specified interest in the problem of vector-borne diseases 
because many of these infectious agents also have potential 
impact on animal health, people, and human food production. The 
Committee provides an increase of $800,000 to ARS for research 
on mosquito trapping and research on the mosquito-borne West 
Nile Virus. Research is to develop the next generation of novel 
or improved mosquito traps and attractant-enhanced trapping 
technology for use in surveillance, detection, population 
monitoring, and control of vectors of exotic mosquito-borne 
disease agents. These traps will be used to collect mosquito 
populations in different regions and assayed to map the 
geographical range of pathogens, and to predict the likelihood 
of disease outbreaks. Further, the Committee directs that 
$450,000 of the increase provided be utilized for cooperative 
research with the University of Connecticut State Agricultural 
Experiment Station for research that focuses on the West Nile 
Virus crisis. These resources will allow the University to 
enhance its ongoing efforts to control and eradicate this 
infectious disease.
    Nematology research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$250,000 in FY 2001 to the ARS research station at Tifton, GA 
for research on the development of nematode management 
strategies to address crop yield losses due to increasing 
population of nematodes.
    Organic minor crop research, Salinas CA.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $38,000 for organic minor crop research 
at the ARS research station at Salinas, CA.
    Parasite mite research.--The Committee directs that 
research in mite control in honey bee colonies utilized in 
honey production and crop pollination be maintained at fiscal 
year 2000 funding levels.
    Plant genetics.--The productivity and sustainability of 
American agriculture depends on accessible and secure 
germplasm. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 to 
the Plant Genetics Resources Laboratory, Geneva, NY for 
germplasm conservation and research on the genetic diversity of 
grape and apple rootstock and other vegetable crops.
    Plant germplasm resources.--The Committee supports the ARS 
research effort to maintain, characterize, evaluate and enhance 
the Nation's plant germplasm. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,875,000 to support ARS repositories and research 
at Davis, CA; Riverside, CA; Ft. Collins, CO; Griffen, GA; 
Ames, IA; Urbana, IL; Ithaca, NY; Corvallis, OR; College 
Station, TX; Pullman, WA; Phoenix, AZ; Washington, DC; 
Charleston, SC; Aberdeen, ID; and Madison, WI.
    Post-harvest and controlled atmosphere chamber.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $38,000 for research into 
post-harvest and controlled atmosphere techniques aimed at 
reducing insect and disease problems in lettuce destined for 
Japan and other export markets.
    Poultry diseases research.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to submit a report on the feasibility of 
consolidating Agricultural Research Services' research on avian 
viral diseases at the Southeast Poultry Disease Laboratory, 
Athens, GA. Costs associated with the completion of this 
feasibility study shall be funded from unobligated balances 
currently available to this laboratory.
    Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome (PEMS).--The Committee 
provides an increase of $100,000 to the Southeast Poultry 
Disease Laboratory, Athens, GA for research on the 
identification and characterization of agents causing Poult 
Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome.
    Plum pox virus.--The Committee recognizes the serious 
disease of Plum Pox, caused by the plum pox virus (PPV) a virus 
disease of stone fruits and some nuts, including peaches, 
plums, apricots, nectarines, cherries and almonds. PPV can 
cause losses up to 80-100% in susceptible varieties. PPV is 
quarantined in most countries including the U.S. and 
importation of budwood and rootstock are prohibited from areas 
where PPV is known to occur. The Committee provides an increase 
of $750,000 for research on detection, insect transmission and 
germplasm enhancement.
    Potato research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$250,000 for research on the evaluation and enhancement of 
potato germplasm, including use of genetic engineering 
techniques, development of new varieties and efficient methods 
of pest control conducted by ARS at Prosser, WA.
    Purple loosestrife research.--The Committee recognizes the 
progress made on purple loosestrife, an invasive Eurasian weed 
of wetland areas. While significant reductions of this weed 
have been made through the release of biological control 
agents, additional research is required. The Committee provides 
an increase of $275,000 to the ARS Ithaca, NY research 
laboratory to carry out this work.
    Rangeland resource management.--Rangeland resource 
management addresses remediation of arid and semi-arid 
rangelands by developing new methods for monitoring and 
assessing rangelands ecosystems, developing new technologies 
for biological control of rangeland weeds, and creating new 
technology transfer applications for arid land management. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,800,000 to the Jornada 
Experimental Range Program at Las Cruces, NM to expand research 
in this area which will result in the development of the best 
forage--livestock management practices and strategies for the 
benefit of both ranchers and private and public land managers.
    Rapid diagnostic capabilities.--The Committee is aware of 
the Department's request to provide research capacity to 
develop ``on the spot'' diagnostic tools for pathogens that 
threaten animal and plant agriculture. This research will help 
the U.S. in preventing and dealing with acts of chemical and 
biological bioterrorism against agricultural and food security 
systems. The Committee provides $500,000 for this research 
initiative.
    Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the continuing 
need for evaluation and enhancement of rice germplasm. The 
Committee provides an increase of $75,000 in fiscal year 2001 
for the National Rice Research Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
    Risk Assessment for Bt. Corn.--The Committee is aware of 
the need for improved insect monitoring for Bt. Corn. 
Laboratory and field studies are necessary to determine 
potential impacts of Bt. Corn on migrating insects, such as the 
monarch butterfly, as well as other insects. The Committee 
provides an additional $400,000 to the ARS laboratory at Ames, 
IA for these investigations.
    Root diseases in wheat and barley.--The Committee directs 
ARS to provide an increase of $75,000 in FY 2001 for the ARS 
Root Disease and Biological Control Laboratory, Pullman, WA for 
investigation of root diseases. Major research breakthroughs 
are needed in root disease management to achieve high yields 
possible under conservation tillage systems.
    Small fruits research.--The Committee directs the ARS to 
maintain funding at the fiscal year 2000 level for the 
Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR. The 
Center conducts and coordinates research efforts unique to 
small fruit industries in the Pacific Northwest, including 
breeding, insect, disease management, product development, and 
market analyses.
    Soil tilth research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of research to carry out effective soil and water 
investigations at the ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, 
IA. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 over the 
fiscal year 2000 level to support this important research.
    Soybean Research/Iowa State University.--The Committee is 
aware of the important ARS-supported soybean genetics work 
being done, and continues to strongly support ongoing research 
at Ames, Iowa, aimed at increasing the productivity and 
profitability of soybean production and processing. The 
Committee expects ARS to continue the program at not less than 
the current fiscal year 2000 funding levels.
    Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the 
importance of the sugarbeet research at Ft. Collins, CO. The 
Committee directs the ARS to fund this project at the fiscal 
year 2000 level.
    Sustainable vineyard practices position.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $38,000 for sustainable vineyard 
practices research at UC, Davis. This research is responsible 
for development of biologically and environmentally sound 
practices for grape growing which enhance compatibility with 
soil, water, air, and biotic resources.
    Temperate fruit flies.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $38,000 to the ARS station at Yakima, WA to further develop 
technology for the control and management of temperate fruit 
flies. The presence of temperate fruit flies has been cited by 
potential export markets as barriers to increased cherry 
exports from the U.S.
    U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for expanded 
research at the U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory in 
Lubbock, TX.
    Utilization of Foundry Sand By-Products in Agriculture.--
The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of foundry 
sand by-products as soil amendments or components of blended 
materials including composts for agricultural situations. 
Within available funds, the Committee urges the Department to 
conduct such research as may be appropriate to amass and 
compile existing data on foundry by-products, perform 
experiments in controlled environments, and establish field 
plot tests to quantify beneficial use responses.
    Vaccines for brucellosis.--The Committee supports 
Department efforts to develop vaccines for wildlife. 
Brucellosis vaccines for wildlife will help eliminate the 
exposure of domestic animals from this disease as they come in 
contact with wild animals. The Committee provides an increase 
of $1,000,000 for this research at the National Animal Disease 
Center, Ames, IA.
    Viticulture research.--The Committee is aware of the 
emerging importance of the grape and wine industry in the 
Pacific Northwest. The Committee provides an increase of 
$68,000 in FY 2001 to address important viticulture research 
being conducted by ARS in cooperation with the University of 
Idaho.
    Water use management technology.--It is estimated that 50% 
of the total water consumed in some critical regions of the 
U.S. Southeast is used for agricultural purposes. The Committee 
provides an increase of $350,000 in FY 2001 to the ARS Research 
Station at Tifton, GA to develop and expedite the 
implementation of remote sensing technologies to improve the 
use of agricultural inputs, including water, nutrients, and 
plant protectants. It is expected that this technology could 
realize efficiency gains of as much as 20% when implemented.

                        Buildings and Facilities




2000 appropriation....................................       $52,500,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        39,300,000
Provided in the bill..................................        39,300,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -13,200,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$39,300,000, a decrease of $13,200,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 2001     Committee
                                                  estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Arizona:
    Water Conservation and Western Cotton                 0       $5,000
     Laboratory, Maricopa.....................
California:
    Western Regional Research Center, Albany..       $4,900        4,900
District of Columbia:
    U.S. National Arboretum...................        3,330        3,330
Iowa:
    National Animal Disease Center, Ames......        9,000        9,000
Maryland:
    Beltsville Human Nutrition Research.......       13,300       13,300
    National Agricultural Library.............        1,770        1,770
New York:
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.........        7,000        7,000
Unspecified locations:
    General reduction.........................            0       -5,000
                                               -------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.........       39,300       39,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Arboretum.--The Committee is disappointed that the 
budget request did not include funding for implementing the 
National Arboretum's master facilities plan. In particular, a 
new entrance road to the Arboretum is a time-sensitive project 
that should proceed as early as possible. Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee is unable to recommend funding for 
this work. However, the Department will be expected to include 
this project in the budget request for fiscal year 2002.
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.--The Committee 
recommends $7,000,000 for repair and maintenance of buildings 
and supporting infrastructure at the Plum Island Animal Disease 
Center at Greenport, NY. The Committee notes that no funds are 
requested for planning or executing an upgrade of the Center to 
Biosafety Level 4, and no funds are provided for this purpose. 
Funds are provided for the following projects:




Replace boiler plant, Phase 3.........................        $3,000,000
Consolidate firehouse/motor pool......................         2,000,000
Miscellaneous small projects/contingency..............         2,000,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................         7,000,000


    Unspecified locations: General reduction.--The Committee 
recommends a general reduction of $5,000,000 to be applied to 
the combination of project savings from favorable bids, reduced 
overhead costs, scope reductions, structuring of bid additives, 
and other cost reduction initiatives available to the 
Department to assure that construction projects are not excess 
to program requirements. This recommendation by the Committee 
does not cancel or delay any project.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                   Research and Education Activities




2000 appropriation....................................      $481,881,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       460,865,000
Provided in the bill..................................       477,551,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        -4,330,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       +16,686,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $180,545,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $21,932,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget 
request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$30,676,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and the same as the budget request.

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                FY 2000      FY 2001       Committee
                              enacted \1\   estimate       provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
         ACTIVITIES

Payments Under Hatch Act....     $180,545    $180,545           $180,545
Cooperative forestry               21,932      21,932             21,932
 research (McIntire-Stennis)
Payments to 1890 colleges          30,676      30,676             30,676
 and Tuskegee University....
Special Research Grants
 (P.L. 89-106):
    Advanced spatial                1,000           0                  0
     technologies (MS)......
    Aegilops cylindricum              360           0                360
     (jointed goatgrass)
     (WA)...................
    Aflatoxin (IL)..........          113           0                113
    Agriculture-based                 250           0                400
     industrial lubricants
     (IA)...................
    Agricultural                      131           0                  0
     diversification (HI)...
    Agricultural diversity/           250           0                500
     Red River Trade
     Corridor (MN/ND).......
    Agricultural                      425           0                425
     telecommunications (NY)
    Agriculture water usage           300           0                300
     (GA)...................
    Agroecology (MD)........            0           0                300
    Alliance for food                 300           0                300
     protection (NE, GA)....
    Alternative crops (ND)..          550           0                550
    Alternative crops for             100           0                100
     arid lands (TX)........
    Alternative salmon                552           0                  0
     products (AK)..........
    Animal science food             1,521           0              1,750
     safety consortium (AR,
     IA, KS)................
    Apple fire blight (MI,            500           0                500
     NY)....................
    Aquaculture (AR)........            0           0                250
    Aquaculture (FL)........            0           0                470
    Aquaculture (LA)........          330           0                330
    Aquaculture (MS)........          592           0                  0
    Aquaculture (NC)........          255           0                300
    Aquaculture (VA)........          100           0                100
    Aquaculture (WA)........            0           0                300
    Aquaculture product and           750           0                  0
     marketing development
     (WV)...................
    Babcock Institute (WI)..          510           0                600
    Binational agriculture          (400)       2,000                400
     research and
     development (BARD) \2\.
    Biobased technology (MI)            0           0                300
    Biodiesel research (MO).          152           0                  0
    Biotechnology (NC)......            0           0                300
    Blocking anhydrous                213           0                  0
     methamphetamine
     production (IA)........
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)          170           0                300
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)          425           0                  0
    Center for animal health          113           0                  0
     and productivity (PA)..
    Center for rural studies          200           0                  0
     (VT)...................
    Chesapeake Bay                    150           0                200
     agroecology (MD).......
    Chesapeake Bay                    385           0                400
     aquaculture (MD).......
    Citrus canker (FL)......            0           0              5,000
    Citrus tristeza.........          595           0                750
    Coastal cultivars (GA)..          170           0                  0
    Competitiveness of                680           0                680
     agricultural products
     (WA)...................
    Cool season legume                329           0                329
     research (ID, WA)......
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)          150           0                150
    Cranberry/blueberry               220           0                220
     disease and breeding
     (NJ)...................
    Dairy and meat goat                63           0                 63
     research (TX)..........
    Delta rural                       148           0                  0
     revitalization (MS)....
    Designing foods for               319           0                375
     health (TX)............
    Diaprepes/root weevil             298           0                400
     (FL)...................
    Drought mitigation (NE).          200           0                200
    Ecosystems (AL).........          500           0                500
    Efficient irrigation (NM/           0           0              1,250
     TX)....................
    Environmental research            400           0                400
     (NY)...................
    Environmental                       0           0                300
     horticulture (FL)......
    Environmental risk                170           0                230
     factors/cancer (NY)....
    Environmentally-safe              170           0                  0
     products (VT)..........
    Exotic pests (CA).......            0           0              2,000
    Expanded wheat pasture            285           0                  0
     (OK)...................
    Farm injuries and                   0           0                300
     illnesses (NC).........
    Farm and rural business            87           0                  0
     finance (IL/AR)........
    Feed barley for                   637           0                637
     rangeland cattle (MT)..
    Fish and shellfish                  0           0                500
     technologies (VA)......
    Floriculture (HI).......          250           0                  0
    Food and Agriculture              800           0              1,000
     Policy Research
     Institute (IA, MO).....
    Food irradiation (IA)...          200           0                250
    Food Marketing Policy             400           0                500
     Center (CT)............
    Food processing center             42           0                 42
     (NE)...................
    Food quality (AK).......          350           0                  0
    Food safety (AL)........          446           0                  0
    Food safety research                0           0                300
     consortium (NY)........
    Food Systems Research             425           0                500
     Group (WI).............
    Forages for advancing             213           0                250
     livestock production
     (KY)...................
    Forestry (AR)...........          523           0                523
    Fruit and vegetable               320           0                350
     market analysis (AZ,
     MO)....................
    Generic commodity                 198           0                198
     promotion, research and
     evaluation (NY)........
    Global change/                  1,000       1,567              1,567
     ultraviolet radiation..
    Global market support             127           0                  0
     service (AR)...........
    Grain sorghum (KS)......          106           0                106
    Grass seed cropping               423           0                423
     systems for sustainable
     agriculture (WA, OR,
     ID)....................
    Human nutrition (IA)....          473           0                473
    Human nutrition (LA)....          752           0                752
    Human nutrition (NY)....          622           0                622
    Hydroponic tomato                 100           0                100
     production (OH)........
    Illinois-Missouri               1,184           0              1,184
     Alliance for
     Biotechnology..........
    Improved dairy                    296           0                500
     management practices
     (PA)...................
    Improved early detection          170           0                  0
     of crop diseases (NC)..
    Improved fruit practices          445           0                445
     (MI)...................
    Infectious disease                255           0                300
     research (CO)..........
    Institute for Food              1,250           0              1,250
     Science and Engineering
     (AR)...................
    Integrated production             180           0                  0
     systems (OK)...........
    International                     250           0                  0
     agricultural market
     structures and
     institutions (KY)......
    International arid lands          400           0                500
     consortium.............
    International asparagus             0           0                200
     competitiveness (WA)...
    Iowa biotechnology              1,564           0              1,564
     consortium.............
    Livestock and dairy               475           0                575
     policy (NY, TX)........
    Lowbush blueberry                 220           0                260
     research (ME)..........
    Maple research (VT).....          100           0                  0
    Meadowfoam (OR).........          300           0                300
    Michigan biotechnology            675           0                775
     consortium.............
    Midwest Advanced Food             423           0                500
     Manufacturing Alliance.
    Midwest agricultural              592           0                700
     products (IA)..........
    Milk safety (PA)........          298           0                350
    Minor use animal drugs..          550         550                  0
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)          400           0                400
    Multi-commodity research          364           0                364
     (OR)...................
    Multi-cropping                    127           0                  0
     strategies for
     aquaculture (HI).......
    National beef cattle                0           0                300
     genetic evaluation
     consortium (NY)........
    National biological               254         254                  0
     impact assessment......
    Nematode resistance               127           0                127
     genetic engineering
     (NM)...................
    Nevada arid rangelands            255           0                300
     initiative (NV)........
    New crop opportunities            425           0                  0
     (AK)...................
    New crop opportunities            595           0                700
     (KY)...................
    Non-food uses of                   64           0                 64
     agricultural products
     (NE)...................
    Nursery, greenhouse, and            0           0                300
     turf specialties (AL)..
    Oil resources from                175           0                175
     desert plants (NM).....
    Organic waste                     100           0                100
     utilization (NM).......
    Pasture and forage                225           0                250
     research (UT)..........
    Peach tree short life             162           0                  0
     (SC)...................
    Peanut allergy reduction          425           0                500
     (AL)...................
    Pest control                      106           0                  0
     alternatives (SC)......
    Phytophthora root rot             127           0                150
     (NM)...................
    Plant, drought, and               212           0                250
     disease resistance gene
     cataloging (NM)........
    Pierce's disease (CA)...            0           0              2,000
    Potato research.........        1,300           0              1,400
    Precision agriculture             850           0                500
     (KY)...................
    Preharvest food safety            212           0                212
     (KS)...................
    Preservation and                  226           0                226
     processing research
     (OK)...................
    Produce pricing (AZ)....            0           0                 80
    Rangeland ecosystems              200           0                400
     (NM)...................
    Red snapper research              510           0                700
     (AL)...................
    Regional barley gene              425           0                425
     mapping project........
    Regional crop                       0       1,500                  0
     information and policy
     centers................
    Regionalized                      294           0                294
     implications of farm
     programs (MO, TX)......
    Rice modeling (AR)......          296           0                296
    Rural Development                 523         523                523
     Centers (PA, IA, ND,
     MS, OR, LA)............
    Rural policies institute          644           0              1,000
     (NE, IA, MO)...........
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)          200           0                200
    Safe vegetable                      0           0                300
     production (GA)........
    Seafood harvesting,               552           0                  0
     processing, and
     marketing (AK).........
    Seafood and aquaculture           305           0                  0
     harvesting, processing,
     and marketing (MS).....
    Seafood safety (MA).....          255           0                300
    Small fruit research              300           0                300
     (OR, WA, ID)...........
    Southwest consortium for          338           0                400
     plant genetics and
     water resources........
    Soybean cyst nematode             475           0                700
     (MO)...................
    STEEP--water quality in           500           0                500
     Pacific Northwest......
    Sustainable agriculture           255           0                400
     (CA)...................
    Sustainable agriculture           445           0                445
     (MI)...................
    Sustainable agriculture            95           0                100
     and natural resources
     (PA)...................
    Sustainable agriculture            59           0                 59
     systems (NE)...........
    Sustainable beef supply           637           0                637
     (MT)...................
    Sustainable pest                  425           0                425
     management for dryland
     wheat (MT).............
    Swine waste management            500           0                500
     (NC)...................
    Technological                       0           0                300
     development of
     renewable resources
     (MO)...................
    Tillage, silviculture,            212           0                212
     waste management (LA)..
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)..          200           0                300
    Tropical and subtropical        2,724           0              5,000
     research/T STAR........
    Tropical aquaculture              170           0                200
     (FL)...................
    Turkey carnavirus (IN)..          200           0                200
    Urban pests (GA)........           64           0                  0
    Value-added products                0           0                100
     (IL)...................
    Vidalia onions (GA).....          100           0                300
    Viticulture consortium          1,000           0              1,500
     (NY, CA)...............
    Water conservation (KS).           79           0                 79
    Weed control (ND).......          423           0                423
    Wetland plants (LA).....          600           0                600
    Wheat genetic research            261           0                261
     (KS)...................
    Wood utilization (OR,           5,136           0              5,786
     MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, ID,
     TN, AK)................
    Wool research (TX, MT,            300           0                300
     WY)....................
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Special               59,948       6,394             74,354
       Research Grants......
                             ===========================================
Improved pest control:
    Emerging pest/critical            200         467                200
     issues.................
    Expert IPM decision               177         260                177
     support system.........
    Integrated pest                 2,731       2,731              2,731
     management.............
    Minor crop pest                 8,990      10,711              8,990
     management (IR-4)......
    Pest management                 1,623       4,200              1,623
     alternatives...........
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest         13,721      18,369             13,721
       control..............
                             ===========================================
Competitive research grants:
    Animals.................       29,000      35,000             26,000
    Markets, trade and              4,600       7,000              4,600
     development............
    Nutrition, food safety         16,000      22,000             14,000
     and health.............
    Natural resources and          20,500      25,000             18,500
     the environment........
    Plants..................       41,000      48,000             26,634
    Processing for adding           8,200      13,000              7,200
     value or developing new
     products...............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Competitive          119,300     150,000             96,934
       research grants......
                             ===========================================
Animal Health and Disease           5,109       5,109              5,109
 (Sec. 1433)................
Alternative crops...........          750           0                750
Critical Agricultural                 600           0                  0
 Materials Act..............
1994 Institutions research            500       1,000              1,000
 program....................
Graduate fellowship grants..        3,000       5,000              3,000
Institution challenge grants        4,350       6,000              4,350
Multicultural scholars              1,000       2,000              1,000
 program....................
Hispanic education                  2,850       3,500              3,500
 partnership grants.........
Secondary agriculture                 500         500                600
 education..................
Aquaculture Centers (Sec.           4,000       4,000              4,000
 1475)......................
Sustainable agriculture             8,000      10,500              9,000
 research and education/SARE
Capacity building grants            9,200       9,500              9,500
 (1890 institutions)........
Payments to the 1994                1,552       1,552              1,552
 Institutions...............
Federal Administration:
    Agriculture development           564           0                564
     in the American Pacific
    Agriculture waste                 425           0                  0
     utilization (WV).......
    Agricultural water                  0           0                385
     policy (GA)............
    Alternative fuels                 218           0                218
     characterization
     laboratory (ND)........
    Animal waste management           250           0                300
     (OK)...................
    Biotechnology research            425           0                  0
     (MS)...................
    Center for Agricultural           355           0                500
     and Rural Development
     (IA)...................
    Center for innovative             381           0                781
     food technology (OH)...
    Center for North                   87           0                 87
     American Studies (TX)..
    Climate change research           170           0                170
     (FL)...................
    Cotton research (TX)....          170           0                500
    Data information system.        2,000       2,250              2,000
    Food animal residue                 0           0                300
     avoidance database.....
    Geographic information            850           0                850
     system.................
    Germplasm development in          100           0                100
     forage grasses (OH)....
    Livestock marketing               170           0                170
     information center (CO)
    Mariculture (NC)........          250           0                250
    Mississippi Valley State          583           0                  0
     University.............
    National Center for               300           0                300
     Peanut Competitiveness
     (GA)...................
    Office of extramural              310         588                588
     programs...............
    Pay costs and FERS......        1,100       1,100              1,100
    Peer panels.............          350         350                350
    PM-10 air quality study           873           0                873
     (CA, WA)...............
    Precision agriculture/            340           0                600
     Geospatial Training and
     Application Center (AL)
    Precision agriculture/             85           0                150
     Tennessee Valley
     Research and Extension
     Center (AL)............
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,         3,354           0              3,354
     HI, MS, MA, SC)........
    Sustainable agriculture             0           0                500
     development (OH).......
    Urban silviculture (NY).            0           0                250
    Water quality (IL)......          298           0                298
    Water quality (ND)......          340           0                340
    Wetland plants (WV).....            0           0                150
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal               14,348       4,288             16,028
       Administration.......
                             ===========================================
      Total, Research and         481,881     460,865            477,551
       Education Activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of reductions pursuant to Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Fiscal year 2000 funding provided under the Agricultural Research
  Service.


              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund




2000 appropriation....................................        $4,600,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         7,100,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,100,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +2,500,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................  ................


    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides authority to establish an 
endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (31 tribal 
controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational 
opportunities for Native Americans by building educational 
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student 
recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty 
preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific 
instrumentation for teaching. Beginning in 2001, it is proposed 
that funds also be made available for facility renovation, 
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: sixty percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro-rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and forty percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed 
in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee provides $7,100,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and the same as the 
budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends language 
as requested which provides that funds may be used to support 
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.

                          Extension Activities




2000 appropriation....................................      $424,174,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       428,236,000
Provided in the bill..................................       428,740,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +4,566,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................          +504,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $428,740,000, an increase of $4,566,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of 
$504,000 above the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        FY 2000     FY 2001    Committee
                                      enacted \1\   estimate  provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever Sections 3(b) & 3(c)....    $276,548    $276,548    $276,548
Smith Lever Section 3(d)
    Farm safety.....................       3,400           0       4,000
    Food and nutrition education          58,695      61,043      58,695
     (EFNEP)........................
    Indian reservation agents.......       1,714       5,000       1,714
    Pest management.................      10,783      12,269      10,783
    Pesticide applicator training...           0       1,500       1,500
    Rural development centers.......         908         908         908
    Sustainable agriculture.........       3,309       4,500       3,309
    Youth at risk...................       9,000      10,000       9,000
    Youth farm safety education and            0       5,000       1,000
     certification..................
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee                26,843      26,843      26,843
 University.........................
1890 facilities grants..............      12,000      12,000      12,000
Renewable Resources Extension Act...       3,192       3,192       3,192
Rural health and safety education...       2,628           0           0
Extension services at the 1994             3,060       3,500       3,060
 institutions.......................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal......................     412,080     422,303     412,552
                                     ===================================
Federal Administration and special
 grants:
    After-school program (CA).......           0           0         420
    Ag in the classroom.............         208         476         576
    Beef producers' improvement (AR)         197           0         197
    Botanical gardens initiative             106           0           0
     (IL)...........................
    Conservation technology transfer         170           0         200
     (WI)...........................
    Delta teachers academy..........       3,500           0       3,500
    Diabetes detection and                   550           0         975
     prevention (WA)................
    Efficient irrigation (NM/TX)....           0           0       2,000
    Extension specialist (MS).......         100           0           0
    Family farm beef industry                  0           0       1,390
     network (OH)...................
    General administration..........       4,736       5,457       4,736
    Income enhancement demonstration         246           0         246
     (OH)...........................
    Integrated cow/calf resources            250           0         300
     management (IA)................
    National Center for Agriculture          195           0         195
     Safety (IA)....................
    Pilot technology transfer (OK,           326           0         326
     MS)............................
    Pilot technology transfer (WI)..         163           0         163
    Range improvement (NM)..........         197           0         197
    Rural development (AK)..........         277           0           0
    Rural development (NM)..........         280           0         280
    Rural development (OK)..........         150           0           0
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).......         246           0           0
    Vocational agriculture (OK).....           0           0         290
    Wood biomass as an alternative           197           0         197
     farm product (NY)..............
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration.      12,094       5,933      16,188
                                     ===================================
      Total, Extension Activities...     424,174     428,236    428,740
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes impact of reductions pursuant to Public Law 106-113.

    Delta Teachers Academy.--The Committee recommends 
$3,500,000 for the Delta Teachers Academy. Within these funds, 
the Committee directs that services shall be provided at a 
school in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
    Diabetes detection and prevention (WA).--The Committee 
recommends $975,000 for confirmation of the detection and 
education pilot demonstration project that has been conducted 
through the Extension Service in Hawaii and Washington. This 
technology involves non-invasive eye imaging, diagnosis through 
existing telemedicine infrastructure and treatment plans.
    Expansion of Extension Systems.--The Committee is aware 
that there are nations such as Lebanon, Russia, and Ukraine 
that have an interest in developing a system similar to our 
Cooperative Extension effort. The Committee directs the 
Department to review these interests and to provide a report 
regarding which countries have such an interest, what efforts 
have been or could be undertaken either by the Department or 
through the Land Grant or private university system to support 
the establishment of extension systems, what resources are 
available or would be needed to adequately support such 
efforts, and whether or not any legislative changes would be 
required to facilitate the expansion of extension systems to 
other nations.
    Farm Safety: AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for 
Smith-Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with 
disabilities to be able to farm safely, efficiently, and 
profitably through on-the-farm education and assistance.
    Income enhancement demonstration (OH).--The Committee 
expects that the Agricultural Business Enhancement Center will 
intensify its efforts in identifying and pursuing improved 
business practices and alternative market opportunities, 
including those related to sales at or through Farmers' 
Markets.
    Indian Reservation Agents.--The Committee directs the 
Department to submit a report on the feasibility of specifying 
that all states with reservation lands are eligible for 
funding, and of inviting all such states to submit proposals 
for funds. This report is to include an analysis of the impact 
of taking into account each state's total Native American 
population when allocating funds on a formula basis. This 
report is to be submitted no later than January 1, 2001.
    National Rural Behavioral Health Center (FL).--The 
Committee is aware of a proposal by the National Rural 
Behavioral Health Center at the University of Florida to train 
cooperative extension service agents in crisis intervention and 
stress management education. This model program would provide 
the training to better equip extension agents in delivering 
behavioral health information and programs to residents of 
rural and farm communities, most of whom live in areas 
experiencing health service shortages. The Committee urges the 
Department to work cooperatively with the Health Resources 
Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services 
in efforts to provide support for the Center and to build on 
the Center's initiative to extend the knowledge gained so that 
extension agents might be empowered to assist rural victims 
with this education and outreach effort.
    4H Programs.--The Committee encourages the Department to 
work with 4H programs to develop a program for the collection 
of discarded and surplus school supplies and clothing for 
redistribution to needy individuals in the United States and to 
the extent possible in other nations.

                         integrated activities




2000 appropriation....................................       $39,541,000
2001 budget estimates.................................        76,194,000
Provided in the bill..................................        39,541,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -36,653,000


    Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water 
Quality, Food Safety, and Pesticide Impact Assessment Special 
Research Grants and Smith Level 3(d) programs previously shown 
under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are 
proposed under this account.

                                              INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2000         FY 2001        Committee
                                                                      enacted        estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Activities:
    Small farms initiative......................................               0          $4,000               0
    Water quality...............................................         $13,000          16,204          12,000
    Food safety.................................................          15,000          15,000          15,000
    Pesticide impact assessment.................................           4,541           4,640           4,551
    International science and education grants..................               0           1,000               0
    Biobased products program...................................               0           9,600               0
    Invasive species............................................               0           1,500               0
    Crops at risk from FQPA implementation......................           1,000           3,000           1,000
    FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems....           4,000          10,000           4,000
    Methyl bromide transition program...........................           2,000           5,000           2,000
    Organic transition program..................................               0           1,000           1,000
    Anti-hunger and food security program.......................               0           5,250               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Integrated Activities..............................          39,541          76,194          39,541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $39,541,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $36,653,000 below the 
budget request.
    Competitive Grants: International Involvement.--The 
Committee directs the Department to focus these research 
dollars on collaborative effort that can take maximum advantage 
of developing agricultural production for the benefit of the 
people of the nation in which the research takes place.
    Water Quality: Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst.--The Committee is 
aware of an admirable voluntary environmental risk reduction 
program known as ``Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst''. Within funds 
provided under the Integrated Activities account, the 
Department is encouraged to give consideration to $4,000,000 
for this program. The Administrator of CSREES is directed to 
report to the Committee on any application received for this 
program at the time of receipt, and on the status of funding 
for this program at the time of any obligation of funds.
    Water Quality: Great Lakes.--The Committee expects that 
attention will be given to the special needs of integrating 
production agriculture and the Great Lakes.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs





2000 appropriation....................................          $618,000
2001 budget estimate..................................           635,000
Provided in the bill..................................           618,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................           -17,000



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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$618,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $17,000 below the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         Salaries and Expenses




2000 appropriation....................................      $437,768,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       512,444,000
Provided in the bill..................................       470,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +32,232,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -42,444,000


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

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2000      FY 2001     Committee
                                     enacted      request     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
    Ag. quarantine inspection....      $34,546      $38,450      $38,450
    User fees....................       86,926       87,000       87,000
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AQI..............      121,472      125,450      125,450
                                  ======================================
    Cattle ticks.................        4,996        5,276        5,276
    Foot-and-mouth disease.......        3,803        3,803        3,803
    Import/export................        6,809        7,237        7,237
    Sanitary/phytosanitary               7,530        9,892        8,785
     management..................
    Fruit fly exclusion and             25,183       55,110       31,910
     detection...................
    Screwworm....................       30,276       30,400       30,400
    Tropical bont tick...........          407          407          407
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease          200,476      237,575      213,268
       Exclusion.................
                                  ======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
 Monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and        65,943       69,501       69,624
     surveillance................
    Animal and plant health              5,850        6,263        6,263
     regulatory enforcement......
    Emergency Management System..          627        5,868        2,368
    Pest detection...............        6,680        6,729        6,729
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Plant and Animal           79,100       88,361       84,984
       Health Monitoring.........
                                  ======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
 Programs:
    Aquaculture..................          766          576          676
    Biocontrol...................        8,153        8,318        8,318
    Boll weevil..................       15,094        2,856       19,757
    Brucellosis eradication......       10,876        8,227        8,427
    Emerging plant pests.........        3,507       28,586        3,533
    Golden nematode..............          580          580          580
    Gypsy moth...................        4,363        4,420        4,420
    Imported fire ant............          100            0          200
    Noxious weeds................          424        2,124        1,124
    Pink bollworm................        1,316        1,074        1,548
    Pseudorabies.................        4,563        4,039        4,039
    Scrapie eradication..........        2,989        8,026        3,026
    Tuberculosis.................        4,916        4,974        4,974
    Wildlife services operations.       31,395       28,684       35,637
    Witchweed....................        1,506        1,506        1,506
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease           90,548      103,990       97,765
       Management................
                                  ======================================
4. Animal Care:
    Animal welfare...............       10,167       15,167       12,167
    Horse protection.............          361          398          398
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Animal Care.........       10,528       15,565       12,565
                                  ======================================
5. Scientific & Technical
 Services:
    Biotechnology/environmental          8,523       10,283       10,283
     protection..................
    Integrated systems                   3,497            0            0
     acquisition project.........
    Plant methods development            4,688        4,806        4,806
     labs........................
    Veterinary biologics.........       10,337       10,751       10,751
    Veterinary diagnostics.......       15,609       17,678       16,678
    Wildlife services methods           10,357       10,525       10,835
     development.................
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Scientific and             53,011       54,043       53,353
       Technical Services........
                                  ======================================
6. Contingency fund..............        4,105        4,105        8,065
7. Invasive species..............            0        8,805            0
                                  ======================================
      Total, Salaries and              437,768      512,444      470,000
       Expenses..................
Recap:
    Appropriated.................      350,842      425,444      383,000
    AQI User Fees................       86,926       87,000       87,000
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       437,768      512,444      470,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs APHIS to assure, 
to the maximum extent possible, that all control activities be 
cost-shared with local sponsors. The Committee also expects 
APHIS to continue work related to blackbird damage control in 
Louisiana. The Committee provides an additional $2,000,000 for 
support and expansion of rabies control including domestic 
programs and international collaboration. The Committee expects 
the program to target rabies in the midwestern and eastern 
states and in Texas. The Committee expects a minimum of 
$600,000 to be targeted to rabies problems in New York state.
    The Committee is concerned about reports that the incidence 
of raccoon rabies is expanding beyond the current control 
border. The Department is encouraged to expand this border and 
to develop additional cooperative agreements with those states 
in the expanded barrier area.
    The Committee also provides $250,000 for wildlife services 
to contain crop and aquaculture losses in southeastern 
Missouri, $625,000 for a cooperative agreement with Georgia 
Wildlife Services and the University of Georgia to conduct 
research on and control of game bird predation in Georgia, and 
$100,000 for trapping in Virginia to combat increased predation 
by coyotes.
    The Committee has received reports of increased losses to 
ranchers in western states. The Committee regrets that 
limitations on the budget prevent any response to requests for 
compensation for loss of livestock, but it provides an 
additional $300,000 to assist in controlling wolf predation.
    The Committee is concerned that the spread of the wolf 
population in western states has caused an increase in Wildlife 
Services operations that cannot be funded with the current 
level of appropriations. The Committee directs the Department 
to prepare a report on increased APHIS activities due to wolf 
predation with increased costs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, 
and projections for costs in fiscal year 2001. The report 
should include an accounting of all compensation to APHIS from 
other federal and local agencies and should be provided to the 
Committees on Appropriations no later than March 1, 2001.
    The Committee expects APHIS to intensify its efforts in 
both research and operations to control migratory fish-eating 
birds, such as the double crested cormorant, which are causing 
serious problems to the Southeastern aquaculture industry.
    The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for 
aviation operations and aviation safety.
    Avocados.--The Committee urges the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service to continue working closely with U.S. 
avocado growers in implementing procedures for the importation 
of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on 
the status of Mexican avocado imports including any problems in 
pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel and importation, 
including the diversion of Mexican avocados to other than 
approved destinations. The Committee also directs APHIS to 
report to Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the 
approved areas or lengthening time periods for importation of 
Mexican avocados.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports a program for 
the control, management, and eradication of the imported fire 
ant and provides $200,000 for this program of which, $75,000 is 
for New Mexico.
    Hog cholera.--The Committee believes there is a very high 
risk of introduction of hog cholera into the United States due 
to the presence of the disease in the Caribbean. The Committee 
believes this should be viewed as an emergency situation and 
the following efforts should be undertaken: (1) preclearance of 
passengers entering the United States from high risk countries; 
(2) enhanced surveillance of high risk U.S. herds; (3) 
enforcement of the Swine Health Protection Act; and (4) 
improved training and educational efforts for state and Federal 
animal health officials and accredited veterinarians.
    Methods Development.--The Committee expects that activities 
funded by this appropriation shall continue to be carried out 
by APHIS Wildlife Services and in full cooperation with state 
wildlife management agencies and the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for research and evaluation 
of nicarbazin as a means of controlling goose and other avian 
populations to increase airport safety.
    National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project for 
Dairy Cattle.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 2000 level for the National Farm Animal 
Identification and Records Project for Dairy Cattle to be 
coordinated with the Holstein Association.
    Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee 
expects that imported products will be subjected to the same 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards as domestic products and 
those that do not meet the U.S. standards will be rejected. 
APHIS should provide adequate staffing levels at the borders 
and ports of entry to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary 
standards are upheld.
    Screwworm.--The Committee expects the Department to 
continue to work with Mexican authorities to develop an 
alternative use for the Chiapas screwworm facility and to 
continue to keep the Committee informed of any developments. 
This alternative use should focus on those activities that 
would help the area population produce commercial crops 
uniquely suitable for production in the area.
    Plant Pest and Disease Emergencies.--The Committee is 
concerned about the increasing risk to our national food supply 
from plant pests and diseases. Recent examples include citrus 
canker in Florida, Pierce's disease in California, plum pox 
virus in Pennsylvania, Asian longhorned beetles in Illinois and 
New York, and Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies throughout 
the southern United States. The Committee notes that the 
Secretary of Agriculture has authority to declare emergencies 
and to use the resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
meet such threats to American agricultural production. This 
system has served our country well for many years by granting 
the Secretary the power to make virtually unlimited efforts to 
eliminate emerging pest and disease problems before outbreaks 
expand and become unmanageable.
    It appears that a problem has now arisen with this system. 
After the Secretary has made an emergency declaration, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must apportion funds from 
the Treasury before the effort can commence. It appears that 
the exercise of this apportionment function has unnecessarily 
delayed USDA action, and has permitted problems to expand, and 
to increase the cost of eradication. The Committee strongly 
believes that this is not a proper use of OMB's ministerial 
power.
    In particular, the state of Florida is increasing its 
effort to control and eradicate citrus canker during the 
current fiscal year. The Committee supports this effort, and 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report by March 1, 2001 
on all requests for OMB apportionment of funds under existing 
emergency declarations.
    Hereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to 
submit to the Committee copies of all apportionments requested 
under emergency declarations at the time they are submitted to 
OMB, as well as the response received from OMB.
    Bovine Tuberculosis.--The Committee is concerned about the 
health of cattle with the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in 
Michigan. The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to 
recognize and declare this emergency and to accelerate its 
prevention and eradication efforts by using $7.5 million in CCC 
emergency funds.
    Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee is aware of the 
serious threat to trees in New York and Illinois and other 
states and directs the Department to continue its prevention 
and eradication efforts using CCC emergency funds and Emerging 
Plant Pest funds as necessary.
    Aquaculture.--The Committee provides an appropriation of 
$676,000 for aquaculture of which $100,000 is to support a 
wildlife biologist at the northwest Florida Aquaculture Farm in 
Blountstown, FL to serve north Florida, southeast Alabama and 
southwest Georgia.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee has increased funding provided 
to APHIS for the Federal cost-share of the nationwide boll 
weevil eradication program. The Committee notes that the 
Federal cost-share has fallen to approximately 5% compared to 
the original level of 30%, as a result of a substantial 
increase in participating acreage. The Committee is aware that 
several programs are incurring significant costs associated 
with self-financing their eradication activities. In 
particular, the Committee notes that Oklahoma producers have 
successfully generated funds through sale of bonds. However, 
the bonds have been subject to Federal tax, thereby 
substantially increasing the financing cost and reducing the 
benefits to the Oklahoma program. The Committee expects APHIS 
and the Boll Weevil Eradication Action Committee to assist the 
Oklahoma Foundation in mitigating the unanticipated costs 
associated with the bond issue.
    Brucellosis.--The Committee provides an additional $200,000 
for the Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis Committee and the Idaho 
Wildlife Brucellosis Plan.
    Blackbird.--The Committee urges the Department to 
implement, if feasible, a baiting program to control blackbird 
damage to sunflowers.
    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
provides an additional $124,000 for the National Poultry 
Improvement Program.
    Pink Bollworm Eradication.--The Committee recognizes the 
significant economic losses caused by pink bollworm 
infestation. The Committee supports efforts which combine the 
use of sterile moths, Bt cotton varieties and limited 
application of conventional pesticides. The Committee therefore 
expects the Secretary to instruct APHIS to utilize all 
available resources to provide financial assistance, in 
addition to the direct appropriation and grower assessments, to 
operate the program during this fiscal year.
    Berryman Institute.--The Committee directs the Department 
to continue the current funding level for the Jack Berryman 
Institute in Utah.
    APHIS Operations at Miami International Airport.--Miami 
International Airport (MIA) is the nation's busiest 
international cargo and second busiest international passenger 
airport. The Committee is concerned about increasing delays in 
time in transit, duties and processing paperwork burdens 
attributable to shipment of goods and arriving passengers at 
MIA. The Committee therefore encourages the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to provide additional positions for APHIS cargo and 
passenger inspection operations at MIA.
    Overhead Charges.--The Committee is concerned that overhead 
costs charged to various programs may be in excess of the 
amounts needed and directs APHIS to keep these costs as low as 
possible.
    Third Party Inspection.--The Committee directs APHIS to 
provide inspection support including training, certification 
and quality audits to businesses providing independent third 
party agricultural inspections.
    Contingency Fund.--The Committee provides an additional 
$3,960,000 over the amount requested for fiscal year 2001 in 
the Contingency Fund. The Committee notes that the 
Administration has proposed using appropriated funds for 
emergencies previously funded by the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC). The Committee strongly disagrees with this 
approach and directs the Department to continue funding such 
emergencies as citrus canker, plum pox, Asian longhorned beetle 
and Pierce's disease through CCC. The Committee also notes that 
there are many new demands for funding to combat pests and 
diseases. Many of these pests and diseases enter the United 
States because of increased imports and travel. Some are of 
domestic origin. The Committee has received requests for 
funding to combat many problems including Asian longhorned 
beetle, Asian gypsy moth, grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, 
Pierce's disease, plum pox, rabies, fire ants, Johne's disease, 
goatsrue/tamarisk and bovine tuberculosis. Frequently, the 
amounts requested differ from APHIS' analysis of need. The 
Committee directs APHIS to consult with state and local 
governments when assistance is requested and use contingency 
funds whenever appropriate.

                        Buildings and Facilities




2000 appropriation....................................        $5,200,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         5,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,200,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................  ................


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings 
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$5,200,000 the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and the same as the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the committee's provisions:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY 2000    FY 2001    Committee
                                         enacted    request   provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings and Facilities:
    Plum Island, NY...................     $1,200     $3,200       3,200
    Basic buildings and facilities          4,000      2,000       2,000
     repair, alterations, and
     preventative maintenance.........
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total, Buildings & Facilities...      5,200      5,200       5,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           Marketing Services




2000 appropriation....................................       $51,497,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        66,572,000
Provided in the bill..................................        56,326,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +4,829,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -10,246,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$56,326,000, an increase of $4,829,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $10,246,000 
below the budget request.
    The Committee expects implementation of the Organic 
Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be 
published in fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee has included $3,000,000 for mandatory price 
reporting. The Committee notes that $4,700,000 was made 
available in fiscal year 2000 for mandatory price reporting, 
and as of April 30, 2000 the Department was at least three 
months behind in its implementation schedule. Since the fiscal 
year 2000 funds are available until expended, the Committee 
believes that adequate funds should be available in fiscal year 
2001 to carry out the program.
    The Committee provides $1,106,000 to complete planning and 
begin implementation of the Pesticide Data water testing 
program.
    The Committee includes $31,000 to stimulate interest in the 
identification and development of marketing opportunities for 
small and limited-resource farmers through the Federal-State 
Marketing Improvement Program.
    The Committee is aware that the Department guidelines for 
commodity purchase programs relating to small businesses 
effectively prohibit many farmer cooperatives from 
participating in such programs. The Committee has included a 
general provision that the USDA does not prohibit eligibility 
or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives in the commodity 
purchase program.
    The Committee has included language that allows the 
transfer of $639,000 from the Marketing Services account to the 
Expenses and Refunds account for the implementation of the 
National Organic Standards Program upon promulgation of a final 
rule. These funds are to provide an incentive for certifying 
agents to become accredited under the new national program as 
soon as possible. Accreditation fees that are proposed as part 
of the program will not be charged during the first 18 months 
of the program, except to cover travel costs. The $639,000 is 
needed to cover program costs for 18 months at which time the 
program expects to be self-supporting through the collection of 
user fees.
    The Committee is encouraged by the attention being paid by 
AMS to the problems of small and medium-sized producers. The 
Committee directs the Department to build on these efforts by 
developing a plan in consultation with the Committee to provide 
marketing training to producers and producer organizations to 
enable them to take maximum advantage of opportunities for 
dealing with new and changing agricultural markets.
    The Committee encourages the Department to expand its 
efforts in collaboration with the North American Farmers Direct 
Marketing Association to facilitate the exchange of information 
between marketers and farmers' markets, and to increase its 
promotion of farmers' markets and direct marketing websites.
    The Committee expects the Department to expand its 
initiative for linking small farmers and cooperatives directly 
with school food purchasing authorities, and to make specific 
efforts in this regard in Ohio.
    The Committee is concerned about the conditions surrounding 
the conduct of the current pork producer referendum. The 
Committee expects the Department to take such steps as may be 
necessary to ensure that only the ballots of legitimate 
producers will be counted in this referendum.
    The Committee compliments AMS for its efforts to develop 
and disseminate more information about contracting practices in 
various sectors of agriculture. The Committee urges and 
encourages the agency to expand these efforts, and to report to 
the Committee as to what additional resources might be 
necessary to provide producers with the amount of information 
they need to evaluate the adequacy of their own contracts.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses




2000 limitation.......................................     ($60,730,000)
2001 budget limitation................................      (60,730,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (60,730,000)
Comparison:
    2000 limitation...................................  ................
    2001 budget limitation............................  ................


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides 
$60,730,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and the same as the budget request.

          Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                              (Section 32)

                     Marketing Agreement and Orders

2000 appropriation......................................   ($12,428,000)
2001 budget estimate....................................    (13,438,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (13,438,000)
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      +1,010,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

    The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all 
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural 
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of 
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or 
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the 
farmers' purchasing power.
    The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets 
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to 
encourage continued adequate production.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1999 through 2001:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1999-2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 2000 current     FY 2001 budget
                                                           FY 1999 actual        estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts).........     $5,701,865,817     $5,735,557,955     $5,738,448,921
    Supplemental Appropriation.........................        145,000,000  .................  .................
    Less Rescission....................................         -7,958,000            -15,000  .................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service.........................     -5,048,150,000     -4,935,199,000     -5,127,579,102
    Commerce Department................................        -66,426,288        -69,920,523        -72,827,819
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers.................................     -5,114,576,288     -5,005,119,523     -5,200,406,921
                                                        ========================================================
Budget Authority.......................................        724,331,529        730,423,432        538,042,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year...........        131,966,602        112,630,114        300,000,000
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................          3,527,838                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Available for obligation.........................        859,825,969        843,053,546        838,042,000
                                                        ========================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Purchases......................        400,000,000        400,000,000        400,000,000
        Emergency Surplus Removal......................        144,484,206         96,000,000                  0
        Diversion Payments.............................        178,264,816                  0                  0
        Disaster Relief................................          7,013,711                  0                  0
    Estimated Future Purchases                                           0         26,041,546        115,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity Procurement.................        729,762,733        522,041,546        515,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
Administrative Funds:
    Commodity Purchase Service.........................          6,580,001          8,584,000          9,604,000
    Marketing Agreements & Orders......................         10,853,121         12,428,000         13,438,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Funds......................         17,433,122         21,012,000         23,042,000
                                                        ========================================================
      Total, Obligations...............................        747,195,855        543,053,546        538,042,000
                                                        ========================================================
Carryout...............................................        112,630,114        300,000,000        300,000,000
Return to Treasury.....................................                  0                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year.......        112,630,114        300,000,000        300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$13,438,000, an increase of $1,010,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee is aware of the continuing disastrous 
situation being experienced by agricultural producers of 
specialty crops who do not receive direct Federal market 
assistance in agricultural sectors where surpluses have 
resulted in prices well below the cost of production. The 
Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal year 2000 
Consolidated Appropriations Act included language urging the 
Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate the impact market 
surpluses in the cranberry industry have on prices paid to 
growers. The language anticipated the Secretary using funds 
made available under the section 32 program to help stabilize 
prices through the purchase of cranberry products. Despite the 
fact that prices being paid to producers in this sector are 
continuing to decline precipitously due to continuing 
surpluses, little has been done to address the situation. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to redouble efforts to help 
producers of specialty crops using the projected $300,000,000 
carryover in the section 32 program. In carrying out this 
mandate, the Secretary should focus on purchases of 
agricultural products grown primarily by small farmers who are 
most in need.

                   Payments to States and Possessions




2000 appropriation....................................        $1,200,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         1,500,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,500,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................          +300,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................  ................


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,500,000, an increase of 
$300,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000, and 
the same as the budget request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses




2000 appropriation....................................       $26,433,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        33,549,000
Provided in the bill..................................        27,801,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +1,368,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................        -5,748,000


    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 Provisions

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides $27,801,000, an increase 
of $1,368,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000, 
and a decrease of $5,748,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee supports GIPSA's expanded role in addressing 
international grain trade issues and has included an increase 
of $368,000 for compliance activities specifically as they 
relate to opening foreign markets for grain and oilseed.
    The Committee has included an increase of $600,000 to allow 
GIPSA to continue to identify anti-competitive behavior, and 
examine causes and competitive implications of contract 
livestock production.
    GIPSA has embarked on a sustained effort to examine the 
competitive structure of the poultry industry, and the 
Committee has provided an increase of $400,000 to carry out 
this work.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

2000 limitation.........................................   ($42,557,000)
2001 budget limitation..................................    (42,557,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (42,557,000)
Comparison:
    2000 limitation.....................................
    2001 budget limitation..............................................

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,557,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the 
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with 
notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for 
flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 
and oversight or other uncontrollable factors occur.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

2000 appropriation......................................        $446,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         560,000
Provided in the bill....................................         446,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................        -114,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $446,000, the same as 
the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$114,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary for Food Safety 
to review the current laws and policies regarding the handling 
or inspection of nonambulatory animals and report back to the 
Committee no later than 180 days with the findings.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service





2000 appropriation....................................      $649,119,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       688,204,000
Provided in the bill..................................       673,790,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +24,671,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -14,414,000



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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $673,790,000, an increase of 
$24,671,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and 
a decrease of $14,414,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee provides the full amount requested for 
inspection costs and for activities related to the Codex 
Alimentarius.
    The Committee provides bill language allowing funds made 
available to the Food Safety and Inspection Service for fiscal 
year 2001 to liquidate overobligations and overexpenditures 
incurred in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
    The Committee remains concerned that the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service has not finished removing or revising those 
meat and poultry inspection regulations inconsistent with the 
HACCP-based inspection system. The agency has missed self-
imposed deadlines for completing this project, and the 
Committee believes the accomplishments in this area, as cited 
in testimony and correspondence, are not as extensive as they 
should be. Accordingly, the Committee directs FSIS to prepare 
by March 1, 2001, a report listing every meat and poultry 
inspection regulation in place prior to publication of the 
Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule, the agency's determination of 
whether each regulation should be revised or removed in the 
wake of HACCP implementation and the agency's proposed date for 
completing that revision or removal.
    The Committee believes that agency managers must have an 
understanding of the establishments that the agency regulates, 
which necessarily requires the occasional observation of 
operations in an inspected establishment. The Committee expects 
all appropriate senior personnel of the agency, specifically 
senior personnel in the Field Operations, the Public Health and 
Science and the Policy and Program Development and Evaluation 
offices, to become HACCP certified and to observe operations in 
the range of establishments inspected by the agency at least 
annually. The agency is directed to provide the Committee a 
report no later than March 1, 2001 listing these senior 
personnel (GS 14 and above), the date on which they have become 
HACCP certified and the date and type of establishment in which 
they have observed operations.
    FSIS has a plan to better utilize available inspection 
personnel through implementation of daily, unscheduled 
inspection in processing establishments. The Committee expects 
the Agency to make full use of its authority to ensure that 
inspection resources are rationally dedicated to address 
relative food safety risks and to avoid the disruptive effect 
of continued inspector shortages. To further these objectives, 
the Agency is expected to evaluate greater flexibility in 
requirements for frequency of unscheduled inspection and other 
possible means of enhancing the efficiency of inspection in 
processing establishments. FSIS should report its findings to 
the Committee by January 31, 2001.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS


    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

2000 appropriation......................................        $572,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         589,000
Provided in the bill....................................         572,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................         -17,000

    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 
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 
Agency (which includes the Commodity Credit Corporation), the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $572,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and a decrease of $17,000 below the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-
354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the 
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers 
the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC); the warehouse examination function; 
the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other 
conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program (NAP); and farm ownership, operating, 
emergency disaster, and other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 
(1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary 
offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the 
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production 
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract, a 
participant's prior contract-crop acreage history and payment 
yield, as well as total program participation, each contract 
participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual 
dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain 
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection, 
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for 
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, 
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production 
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for 
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
    Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, 
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 Act provides for 
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract 
commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, 
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment 
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus 
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. Producers have the 
option of taking a loan deficiency payment, if available, in 
lieu of the marketing assistance loan.
    The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where 
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature 
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of 
sugar. The 1996 Act provides for a milk price support program, 
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31, 
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35 
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per 
hundredweight in 1999. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 
106-78, extends the milk price support program to January 1, 
2001. The 1996 Act and the 1938 Act provide for a peanut loan 
and poundage quota program for the 1996 through 2002 crops of 
peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended 
(1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a price support, 
quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will, in effect, be one percentage point higher 
than CCC's cost-of-money for that month.
    The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by 
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for 
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment 
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000 
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan 
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was 
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues 
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the 3-entity rule is 
continued.
    Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various 
price support and related programs have been authorized in 
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's. 
Operations under these programs are financed through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the 
Farm Service Agency (FSA) are utilized in the administration of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the 
FSA is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
    The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address 
high priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC 
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of 
the programs financed through the CCC.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations 
and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480.
    Farm credit programs.--The Department's reorganization has 
placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate 
improved coordination between the credit programs and FSA's 
risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs. 
FSA reviews applications, makes and collects loans, and 
provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under 
credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) loans are 
appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and transferred to FSA 
salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection 
for growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not 
available.

                         Salaries and Expenses


                                                                              Transfer from
                                                            Appropriation    program accts.     Total, FSA, S&E

2000 appropriation \1\..................................      $794,394,000    ($211,265,000)    ($1,005,659,000)
2001 budget estimate....................................       828,385,000     (266,719,000)     (1,095,104,000)
Provided in the bill....................................       828,385,000     (266,719,000)      (1,095,104,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................       +33,991,000     (+55,454,000)       (+89,445,000)
    2001 budget estimate................................  ................  ................  ..................

\1\ Excludes $56,000,000 in Commodity Credit Corporation funds provided by P.L. 106-78 to cover FSA
  administrative costs to carry out emergency and disaster assistance for producers.


                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $828,385,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $266,719,000, for a total 
program level of $1,095,104,000. This is an increase of 
$89,445,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
(excluding supplementals) and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm 
loan and assistance programs to those in most economic need.
    Barley Loan Rate.--The Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 requires the Secretary in implementing the 
Marketing Loan Assistance Program to establish a loan rate for 
barley, and respective feed grains, ``taking into 
consideration'' barley's feeding value relative to corn. This 
determination does not reflect, but does not preclude taking 
into account, the value of malting barley, which represents 
more than one-half of annual U.S. barley production. In 
establishing the national average loan rate for barley for the 
2000 through 2002 crops, the Committee directs the Secretary to 
include in the determination prices representing all U.S. 
barley production for the previous five years, including not 
less than one-half of the difference between average prices for 
malting barley and feed barley. The Committee also directs the 
Secretary to take into account county production and prices of 
feed barley and malting barley in establishing county loan 
rates and loan repayment rates, so as to meet the objectives of 
the non-recourse marketing loan program which include 
minimizing outlays and commodity forfeitures.
    Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program/Habitat for 
Endangered Species.--The Committee urges the Farm Service 
Agency (FSA) to put priority on proposals addressing the 
habitat needs of species listed as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act, and water quality 
improvements for water bodies listed as impaired under section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Committee encourages FSA to 
use maximum flexibility in interpreting Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program (CREP) policies to ensure that riparian 
buffer standards are appropriate for the landscape type and 
actual biological and water quality needs of the relevant 
watershed. The FSA is directed to administer CREP in a manner 
which encourages collaborative partnerships in watershed 
restoration and protection and where appropriate, combines CREP 
benefits and financial resources with state, private or 
regional initiatives that build off the core CREP measures with 
broader or long-term buffer contracts, including the purchase 
of easements by other entities.
    County Offices.--The Committee is concerned about any 
Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when 
the FSA office network is essential to helping farmers address 
critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee 
reiterates its strong view that no county office closure or 
consolidation should occur except in those locations for which 
closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to 
ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available 
to the public will not be reduced.
    FSA County Office Employees.--The Committee is disappointed 
that the budget request did not include funding to support 
maintaining FSA county office employees at the Fiscal Year 2000 
level. Rural communities and agricultural producers rely 
heavily on the programs administered by the FSA county office 
employees during periods of economic decline. Since the current 
economic crisis is not expected to decline in the near future, 
the Committee directs the FSA to use all available funding 
sources, program delivery efficiencies and workload management 
options to support retaining FSA county office employees. The 
Committee expects the Department to provide budget requests 
fully supporting the workload needs of county office employees.
    Location of Commodity Sales to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC).--The Committee directs the Department to 
increase its outreach to producers and grain traders so as to 
increase the pool of CCC-eligible vendors for any commodity 
sale. In particular, the Committee expects the Department to 
make special efforts in Ohio and other Great Lakes States to 
increase sales and shipments from these areas.

                         state mediation grants

2000 appropriation......................................      $3,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................       4,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................      -1,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $3,000,000, the same as the amount available 
in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $1,000,000 below the 
budget request.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program

2000 appropriation......................................        $450,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         450,000
Provided in the bill....................................         450,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $450,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

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

                         estimated loan levels

2000 loan level..............................a $3,083,292,000
2001 budget estimate....................................   4,557,938,000
Provided in the bill....................................   4,557,938,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level.....................................  +1,474,646,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

a Excludes $2,542,294,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant 
to P.L. 106-113 enacted 11/29/99.

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

                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 2001 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are: $1,128,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$128,000,000 is for direct loans and $1,000,000,000 for 
guaranteed loans; $3,177,868,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $700,000,000 is for direct loans, $477,868,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $2,000,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $2,006,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; $150,064,000 for emergency disaster loans; 
and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.

                      agriculture credit programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2001        Committee
                                                                  FY 2000  level     estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
    Direct......................................................      a $128,049        $128,000        $128,000
    Guaranteed..................................................       b 431,373       1,000,000       1,000,000
Farm operating:
    Direct......................................................       c 500,000         700,000         700,000
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................     d 1,697,842       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................       e 200,000         477,868         477,868
Emergency disaster..............................................        f 25,000         150,064         150,064
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................           1,028           2,006           2,006
Boll Weevil Eradication.........................................         100,000         100,000         100,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................       3,083,292       4,557,938       4,557,938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Excludes $21,951,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
b Excludes $568,627,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
c Excludes $400,000,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
d Excludes $302,158,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
e Excludes $702,558,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
f Excludes $547,000,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels


                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses

2000 appropriation...........................................    a $38,030,000    b $43,976,000     $214,161,000
2001 budget estimate.........................................      114,060,000       71,494,000      269,454,000
Provided in the bill.........................................      114,060,000       71,494,000      269,454,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation.......................................      +76,030,000      +27,518,000      +55,293,000
    2001 budget estimate.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............


a Excludes $109,218,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
b Excludes $69,339,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).

    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 2001, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY 2000           FY 2001          Committee
                                                                estimate          estimate         provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
  Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................      a $4,827,000       $13,786,000       $13,786,000
    Guaranteed............................................       b 2,416,000         5,100,000         5,100,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................         7,243,000        18,886,000        18,886,000
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:
    Direct................................................      c 29,300,000        63,140,000        63,140,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................      d 23,940,000        27,400,000        27,400,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................      e 17,620,000        38,994,000        38,994,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        70,860,000       129,534,000       129,534,000
                                                           =====================================================
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................            21,000           323,000           323,000
Emergency disaster........................................       f 3,882,000        36,811,000        36,811,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................        82,006,000       185,554,000       185,554,000
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:
  Salaries and expenses...................................       209,861,000       265,315,000       265,315,000
  Administrative expenses.................................         4,300,000         4,139,000         4,139,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................       296,167,000       455,008,000       455,008,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Excludes $828,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
b Excludes $3,184,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
c Excludes $23,441,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
d Excludes $4,260,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
e Excludes $61,895,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).
f Excludes $84,949,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106-113).

                         Risk Management Agency

2000 appropriation......................................     $63,983,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      67,700,000
Provided in the bill....................................      67,700,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      +3,717,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $67,700,000, an increase of $3,717,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the 
budget request.

                              Corporations


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

2000 appropriation.............................a $710,857,000
2001 budget estimate..........................a 1,727,671,000
Provided in the bill..........................a 1,727,671,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................  +1,016,814,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

a Current indefinite appropriation.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace 
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment 
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy, or $200 for all 
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600 
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At 
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers 
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and 
certain other farm programs. This coverage was available either 
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under 
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 
1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility 
for emergency crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT 
coverage required to meet program requirements. Emergency loss 
assistance does not include emergency loans or payment under 
the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered 
by FSA. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began 
phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices, 
except in those areas where there are insufficient private 
insurance providers. The private companies serve as the sole 
source for CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies 
for additional ``buy-up'' coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for 
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 
percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater 
than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount is 
equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 50 
percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected 
market price and an amount of operating and administrative 
expenses.
    The reform legislation included the NAP program for 
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance 
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of 
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop 
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad 
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was 
established as part of the Risk Management Agency, under the 
FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has 
been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program 
activities.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, the same as provided in fiscal year 2000 and the 
same as the budget request.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

     The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under 
the laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United 
States, and was managed and operated in close affiliation with 
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was 
transferred to the Department of Agriculture by the President's 
Reorganization Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established 
as an agency and instrumentality of the United States under a 
permanent Federal charter by Public Law 80-806, as amended. Its 
operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other 
specific legislation.
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation also makes available materials and facilities 
required in connection with the storage and distribution of 
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for 
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of 
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive 
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the 
duration of conservation reserve program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996; 
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).
    The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production 
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed 
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple 
(ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for 
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The 
1996 Act also requires a milk price support program that begins 
after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31, 
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product 
processors. The FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-78 extends 
the milk price support program through January, 2001.
    The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation 
acreage reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the 
conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve 
program (WRP), and the environmental quality incentives program 
(EQIP). Each of these programs is funded through the 
Corporation.
    The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded 
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option; 
flood risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives, 
and farmland protection programs.
    The Corporation is managed by a board of directors 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject 
to the generalsupervision and direction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the board. 
The board consists of six members, in addition to the Secretary, who 
are designated according to their positions in the Department of 
Agriculture.
    Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA 
state and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used 
to carry out Corporation activities.
    The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to 
$30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal Treasury and 
may also be borrowed from private lending agencies.
    The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation are as follows:
    In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its 
annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the 
Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is 
authorized to use its general powers only to--
          (a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities 
        through loans, purchases, payments, and other 
        operations.
          (b) Make available materials and facilities required 
        in connection with the production and marketing of 
        agricultural commodities.
          (c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to 
        other government agencies, foreign governments, and 
        domestic, foreign or international relief or 
        rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic 
        requirements.
          (d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or 
        disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
          (e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural 
        commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of 
        domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the 
        development of new and additional markets, marketing 
        facilities, and uses for such commodities.
          (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural 
        commodities.
          (g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs 
        authorized by law.
          (h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress 
        may specifically authorize or provide.

                 Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses




2000 appropriation.............................        a $30,037,136,000
2001 budget estimate...........................         a 27,771,007,000
Provided in the bill...........................           27,771,007,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation.........................           -2,266,129,000
    2001 budget estimate.......................  .......................


a Current indefinite appropriation.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides $27,771,007,000, a 
decrease of $2,266,129,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

       Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

2000 limitation.........................................      $5,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................       5,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       5,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 limitation.....................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste 
Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000, 
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the 
same as the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

2000 appropriation......................................        $693,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         711,000
Provided in the bill....................................         693,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................         -18,000

    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 Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$693,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $18,000 below the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                        Conservation Operations




2000 appropriation....................................      $660,812,000
2001 budget estimate..................................       747,243,000
Provided in the bill..................................       676,812,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................       +16,000,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................       -70,431,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $676,812,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$70,431,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee does not include funds for global climate 
change, biomass products initiative, or the Community Federal 
Information Partnerships as requested in the budget. These 
programs do not support the current level of on-the-ground 
conservation technical assistance.
    The Committee does not concur with the request to transfer 
$36,000,000 from NRCS for Common Computing Environment (CCE)/
Service Center Modernization (SCM), but rather encourages the 
Chief to work with the Secretary to determine a fair and 
equitable amount to support CCE/SCM efforts.
    The Committee includes legislative language prohibiting the 
use of funds to carry out the urban resources partnership (URP) 
program and the American heritage rivers initiative (AHRI). 
This prohibition of the use of NRCS funds to carry out the AHRI 
does not apply to the work being done on the Hudson River and 
the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna River. The Committee notes 
that an evaluation report conducted by the Office of Inspector 
General found: (1) that the Under Secretary chose not to follow 
the normal legislative process to initiate the URP program, and 
(2) good management practices were not followed in implementing 
an URP program and $20.3 million in program expenditures were 
made without proper statutory authority and funding 
authorities. The Committee directs that the $2,204,000, and the 
associated staff years included in the explanatory notes for 
URP program and AHRI be used to fund conversation technical 
assistance.
    The Committee includes $18,000,000 for the Grazing Lands 
Conservation Initiative, an increase of $1,000,000 above the 
current funding level.
    The Committee has provided for the continuation of the 
following projects: $400,000 to promote pastureland management 
and rotational grazing in Central New York; $250,000 to 
establish best management practices to individual farmers to 
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of 
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds; 
$250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in 
the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $600,000 for the Great Lakes Basin 
Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment Control; $250,000 for 
technical assistance to the Westchester Soil and Conservation 
District to address land use and water quality issues affecting 
the Long Island Sound; $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program 
in Iowa; and, fiscal year 2000 funding and staffing levels in 
support of Chesapeake Bay activities.
    The Committee has included additional funding for the 
following projects: $100,000 to promote pastureland management 
and rotational grazing in central New York for a total of 
$500,000; $100,000 for the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil 
and Erosion Sediment Control for a total of $700,000; $50,000 
for technical assistance to the Westchester Soil and 
Conservation District to address land use and water quality 
issues affecting the Long Island Sound for a total of $300,000; 
$500,000 to establish an innovative, collaborative approach to 
protecting the resources of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary; 
$100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois; $250,000 
for technical assistance to the Lake Tahoe Basin Soil 
Conservation Project; $525,000 to implement phase II of a 
multi-year agreement between NRCS and the Watershed 
Agricultural Council in Walton, New York, of this amount 
$80,000 should be for monitoring of perpetual stewardship 
easements; $525,000 for a cooperative agreement to build 
surface water retention/pond projects in Georgia; $290,000 to 
expand cooperative efforts with Delaware State University for 
plant materials; $100,000 for conservation tillage and soil 
quality in Alabama; $1,500,000 for a pilot program to improve 
NRCS field office telecommunications capabilities in remote 
areas of New Mexico serving mostly minority or disadvantaged 
populations; $250,000 to design and implement natural stream 
restoration initiatives in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of which 
$125,000 shall be for the Canaan Valley Institute and $125,000 
for the NRCS office in Morgantown, West Virginia; $200,000 for 
the soil survey geographic database to conduct digitized soil 
surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands in conjunction with the 
Canaan Valley Institute; $125,000 for a pilot AFO/CAFO project 
in Utah in cooperation with the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah 
Cattlemen Association, and the Utah Dairymen Association; 
$1,600,000 for the creation and implementation of pilot 
projects for innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 
percent reduction in nutrients of wastewater discharged by 
confined animal feeding operations through organizations such 
as Florida Agricultural Resources Mobilization Foundation, Inc. 
and the North Carolina Agricultural Finance Authority to 
accelerate the process of selection, funding, implementing, and 
evaluating systems through pilot projects; $100,000 for the 
Dairy Quality assurance program in California; and an increase 
of $8,660,000 for a total of $53,670,000 for AFO/CAFO work.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide technical 
assistance for the Embrass River Watershed and Shad Lake in 
Illinois.
    The Committee directs the NRCS to use up to $600,000 in 
EQIP funds for conservation measures and up to 500 acres from 
the wetlands reserve program to restore wetlands and purchase 
permanent easements in the Illinois River Basin in Illinois.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide financial 
support to the National Agroforestry Center to the extent the 
Center can provide direct benefits in support of NRCS programs.
    The Committee encourages the agency to provide adequate 
funds to the National Water Management Center in Lonoke, 
Arkansas.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to augment the 
telecommunications pilot project in New Mexico from existing 
telecommunications funds.
    The Committee recognizes the long-term nature of the 
technical assistance work associated with EQIP contracts, and 
recommends that the technical assistance component be 
reimbursed for all costs associated with new and existing 
contracts.
    The Committee encourages NRCS to be reimbursed for the cost 
of technical assistance needed to support EQIP and to conduct 
voluntary on-farm environmental assessments as part of the pork 
industry's On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to allocate EQIP funds to 
the maximum extent possible to conduct voluntary on-farm 
assessments for the pork industry's On-Farm Odor/Environmental 
Assistance Program.
    The Committee recognizes the major difficulties created by 
the encroachment of urban areas on rural areas. The Committee 
believes that there is a need to develop a more comprehensive 
and integrated view of transportation, land use by commercial, 
residential, agricultural, and public entities. The Committee 
directs the Service to develop a proposal for such a 
comprehensive view, including consultation with entities such 
as the American Farmland Trust and the Nature Conservancy. In 
the development of this proposal, the Committee expects the 
Service to identify pilot projects for this activity, including 
highway development in northwest Ohio, and the pilot land use 
and open space program for Macomb and St. Clair Counties, 
Michigan.

                     watershed surveys and planning




2000 appropriation....................................       $10,368,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        10,368,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,868,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................          +500,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................          +500,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $10,868,000, an increase of $500,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of 
$500,000 above the budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations




2000 appropriation \1\................................       $91,643,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        83,423,000
Provided in the bill..................................        83,423,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        -8,220,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................  ................


\1\ Excludes $80,000,000 in emergency funding provided by P.L. 106-113.


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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $83,423,000, a decrease 
of $8,220,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and the same amount as the budget request. Language is included 
which limits the amount spent on technical assistance to not 
more than $44,423,000. The Committee expects more funding to be 
spent on completing ongoing projects and reducing the backlog 
of watershed projects.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following projects: the four pilot projects in North 
Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; Glen 
Shoals Lake in Illinois; Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed 
Project in Texas; Little Red River and the Big Slough 
Watersheds in Arkansas; Soap Creek Watershed in Iowa; Elm Fork 
Watershed Structure 19 in Texas; Sumter County, South Carolina; 
Upper Hocking Watershed, East Fork Buck Creek Watershed and 
Rush Creek Watershed; and the Chino Dairy Preserve Project, San 
Bernardino, California.
    The Committee includes bill language that of the funds 
available for Emergency Watershed Protection activities, 
$1,045,000 shall be available for DuPage County, Illinois for 
financial and technical assistance.
    The Committee believes that dams built by the USDA are 
essential to the safety and livelihood of the areas they 
encompass, and has earmarked $4,100,000 in subsidy budget 
authority for a low-cost loan program as requested in the 
President's budget. The subsidy level will provide a 
$60,000,000 loan program level that will provide loans to State 
and local governments for the rehabilitation of aging dams 
built over the past 50 years. The Committee receive numerous 
requests to fund dam rehabilitation. The Committee encourages 
the NRCS to identify those projects in greatest need of 
rehabilitation including: Mud River Watershed and West Fork 
Clarks River Watershed in Kentucky, and Calwell Lake Dam and 
Wolf Run Lake Dam in Guernsey, Noble and Washington Counties, 
Ohio.
    The Committee is aware of continued flooding in the Devils 
Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen 
25 feet over the last several years. The Committee encourages, 
the NRCS in cooperation with the FSA to assist in the locally 
coordinated flood response and water management activities 
being developed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
NRCS and FSA utilize conservation programs in providing water 
holding and storage areas on private land as necessary 
intermediate measures in watershed management.
    The Committee recognizes that the Manatee Agriculture Water 
Reuse System (MARS) may provide a model for protecting scarce 
agricultural water resources in Florida's unique watersheds and 
the rest of the nation. The subcommittee therefore urges the 
Secretary to consider providing the maximum grant allowable 
through his discretionary authority under the Watershed 
Protection and Flood Prevention Act to assist farmer access to 
the MARS project in Manatee County, Florida.

                 resource conservation and development




2000 appropriation....................................       $35,265,000
2001 budget estimate..................................        36,265,000
Provided in the bill..................................        41.015,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................        +5,750,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................        +4,750,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $41,015,000, an increase of 
$5,750,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and 
an increase of $4,750,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee fully funds the President's request of 
$6,492,515 for headquarters and centers/institutes. The 
Committee directs that all other funds go to direct support of 
Resource Conservation and Development's area operations. The 
Committee recognizes that there are 50 pending applications for 
the program, and expects these applications to be funded to the 
maximum extent practicable.

                      forestry incentives program

2000 appropriation......................................      $5,377,000
2001 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      -5,377,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

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

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

2000 appropriation......................................        $588,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         605,000
Provided in the bill....................................         588,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................         -17,000

    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 Rural 
Utilities Service.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$588,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $17,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and 
other rural development programs: grants and loans for the 
Southern New Mexico state fair grounds buildings and 
infrastructure improvements; a grant to the Pueblo of Acoma for 
the Baca pipeline; a grant to the Pueblo of Laguna water 
development project (NM); a grant to the New Mexico Farm and 
Ranch Heritage Museum; assistance for the development and 
construction of the Agribusiness Center in Statesboro (GA); 
funding for sewage treatment and wastewater collection in the 
city of Blaine, WA; funds for agricultural economic development 
in the New York City Watershed; a Rural Business Enterprise 
Grant for development and promotion of agritourism in New York; 
the provision of water and sewer services for the city of 
Jenkins, KY; improvements to the Iberville Parish (LA) Water 
Project; improvements to the Livingston Parish (LA) Water 
Project; the purchase and repair of the Crown Building in Craig 
County, VA; construction of a shell building in the Floyd 
County (VA) Industrial Park; a rural business enterprise grant 
for development of infrastructure in the Glen Lyn (VA) 
Industrial Park; rural business enterprise grants for small 
business incubators in Southwest Virginia including the Floyd 
County Jacksonville Center, the Town of Grundy, the Virginia 
Highlands, the Southwest Regional Enterprise Center and the 
Dickenson County Kitchen Incubator; forgiveness or rescheduling 
for a wastewater system loan made to the town of Grundy, VA; 
expansion of the farmer's market in Duffield, VA; a rural 
business opportunity grant to plan and design a cheese 
processing facility in Washington County, VA; loans or grants 
for farmworker housing in Hillsborough County, FL; preservation 
and upgrading of the Lyles Station School in Gibson County, IN; 
a regional employment, economic and software development center 
for the Middle Georgia College in Cochran, GA; improvements to 
the water and sewer system for the Satsop Development Park in 
Grays Harbor, Grays Harbor County, WA; assistance to farmers' 
markets in Bath, Bourbon, Estill, Nicholas and Powell counties 
(KY); a rural business enterprise grant to preserve and restore 
the York (PA) Farmers' Market; the Interpretive Plan for the 
Lincoln Highway and Gettysburg Borough (PA); the Central Valley 
Applied Agricultural and Technology Center in Clovis, CA for a 
multi-use community agriculture education project; the 
Burlington Community Land Trust's proposal to construct the 
Vermont Public Market; the Southern Vermont Recreation Center 
Foundation for a senior center and community facility in 
Springfield, VT; the Community Recreation, Exercise and 
Wellness organization for a multi-purpose therapy and 
rehabilitation project in Morrisville, VT; a safe drinking 
water project in Jackson and Vinton counties (OH); a community 
facilities grant for the Iron County (MI) Association for 
repairs to an event complex; assistance to the Rural Center of 
North Carolina to assist rural communities with planning costs 
for water and wastewater treatment projects; a project to 
improve facilities at the Curry County, NM fairgrounds; a 
feasibility study for the construction of a regional fire 
fighters' training facility in the City of Clovis, NM; 
assistance to Rural Enterprises Inc. for development, marketing 
and implementation of a rural infrastructure tax-exempt loan 
pool through a bond issue in Durant, OK; the Montana 
Agricultural Product Processing Consortium for processing 
higher value products derived from Montana agricultural 
commodities; a cooperative development grant for the Mission 
Valley (MT) Market Project for a regional shared-use processing 
center; a value-added cooperative center at Montana State 
University-Northern in Havre for cooperative activities a rural 
economic development grant for Malt Montana, Inc. to assist the 
manufacture of custom malt; a feasibility study for 
agricultural options in Dawson County, MT; infrastructure 
improvements for the city of Scobey, MT; funding for the 
construction of a straw fiberboard plant in Rudyard, MT; a 
project for repair and upgrades to the Tillamook Railroad (OR) 
and the associated fiber optic telecommunication network; 
support for a ``Value-Added Initiative'' at Western Illinois 
University to identify new opportunities to produce value-added 
products; funding from the Rural Community Development 
Initiative for the SWODA Development Corporation for investment 
in infrastructure in western Oklahoma; assistance to the 
Greater Fleming County (KY) Regional Water Commission for well 
drilling, connections and related equipment and facilities; 
assistance to the Belvidere-Boone County New Uses Agriculture-
Technology District (IL) for continued work on research and 
development of bio-based products; funding from the community 
facilities account to complete the upgrading and renovation of 
St. Clair Park within the city of Greensburg, Westmoreland 
County, PA; the Tucker County Development authority's 
Industrial Park water and sewer project in Davis, WV; the 
Vandalia (WV) Heritage Foundation's program for revitalization 
through community and economic development; facilitation of 
economic diversification and community development in 
communities in Barbour County, WV; the Adaland Restoration 
Committee's project to increase tourism through restoration of 
heritage properties in Phillipi, WV; a biofuels research 
project at the Center for Energy Research, Education and 
Service at Ball State University (IN); assistance for the 
construction of a Vocational Agricultural Complex at the 
Antelope Valley's new fairgrounds and construction of a 19,000 
square foot exhibit hall for the fairgrounds in Lancaster, CA; 
a rural business enterprise grant or a community facilities 
grant to the Western Massachusetts food processing center in 
Greenfield, MA; the application of the Hampden Hampshire 
Housing Partnership's application for rental subsidy assistance 
for 17 units at the Mountain View Apartments in Hadley, MA; 
funding for the high technology University Research Park in 
Carbondale, IL to promote regional economic development; 
forgiveness or rescheduling for rural development loans issued 
to the Green County (KY) Sanitation District #1; funding for 
construction enhancements, additional farm acreage, and various 
equipment for the Cumberland Farm Products Association in 
Monticello, KY; a Rural Business Enterprise Grant to the City 
of Ellington, MO, to construct water and sewer lines for retail 
operations; a Rural Business Enterprise Grant to the Southeast 
Missouri Port Authority for motive rail equipment and 
facilities; a grant for a Micro Rural Business Development 
Center on the campus of Tougaloo College in Jackson, MS; grants 
to the Village of Teutopolis (IL) for upgrading and extending 
the existing sewer system; and a multipurpose facility for the 
Lamar County (GA) Livestock and Agricultural Exposition 
Authority.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.
    The Committee directs the Department to consider assistance 
for a rent-to-own project in the town of Troy, NC.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with the Town 
of Ulster, NY to work out the difficulties of establishing the 
Glenerie Water District under the constraints of the New York 
State Department of Audit and Control.
    The Committee has provided set asides for Rural Empowerment 
Area Partnership Zones in several programs in the rural 
development mission area. The Committee directs that when 
evaluating an application submitted by a community designated 
as a Rural Empowerment Area Partnership Zone, the Secretary 
shall also consider the following factors when assigning points 
for poverty, unemployment, and other demographic factors: local 
constraints to economic growth and activity; low density 
settlement patterns; stagnant or declining employment; and 
isolation resulting in disconnection from markets, suppliers, 
and centers of information and finance.

                Salaries and Expenses, Rural Development


                                                             Administrative
                                                                expenses          Transfers      Total expenses

2000 level \1\............................................      $120,270,000       413,262,000      $533,532,000
2001 budget request.......................................       130,371,000       450,589,000       580,960,000
Provided in the bill......................................       120,270,000       413,262,000       533,532,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation....................................  ................  ................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..................................       -10,101,000       -37,327,000       -47,428,000


\1\ In Fiscal Year 2000, Salaries and Expenses were provided in separate accounts for the Rural Utilities
  Service, the Rural Housing Service and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. In Fiscal Year 2001, a new
  consolidated account is being established to administer all Rural Development programs.

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing 
Service and 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.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                          committee provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 
areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $120,270,000, 
a decrease of $10,101,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee agrees to the Administration request to combine three 
separate salary and expense accounts into one account for rural 
development. In fiscal year 2000, a total of $120,270,000 was 
provided for these three accounts.

                  rural community advancement program

2000 appropriation...................................... \1\$693,637,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     762,542,000
Provided in the bill....................................     775,837,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................     +82,200,000
    2001 budget estimate................................     +13,295,000

\1\ Includes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-
113 enacted November 29, 1999.

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will 
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to 
applicant needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, 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, 306C, 306D, 
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 
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as 
amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                          committee provisions

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

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2000      FY 2001     Committee
                                      level       estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
    Community facility loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0  ...........
        Direct...................      $10,150      $29,225      $10,150
    Community facility grants....       13,000       24,000       23,000
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, housing......       23,150       53,225       33,150
                                  ======================================
Business:
    Business and industry loans:
        Guaranteed...............      $26,435      $10,125      $10,125
        Direct...................            0        2,910        2,910
    Rural business enterprise           37,664       40,664       50,664
     grants......................
    Rural business opportunity         \1\ 500        8,000       10,000
     grants......................
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, business.....       64,599       61,699       73,699
                                  ======================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal
     loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0  ...........
        Direct...................       73,420      140,249       75,500
    Water and waste disposal           529,768      502,369      588,488
     grants......................
    Solid waste management grants        2,700        5,000        5,000
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, utilities....      605,888      647,618      668,988
                                  ======================================
          Total, loans and grants      693,637      762,542      775,837
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-
  113 enacted November 29, 1999.

    The Committee notes that the house-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides an additional $28,000,000 for 
water and waste grants and an additional $15,000,000 for 
community facilities grants. The Committee further notes that 
the Administration has provided from the Fund for Rural America 
an additional $28,000,000 for water and waste projects, an 
additional $2,000,000 for community facilities grants, an 
additional $1,000,000 for rural business opportunity grants and 
an additional $1,300,000 to subsidize business and industry 
loan guarantees of approximately $40,000,000. These additional 
funding levels are not indicated in the previous table.
    The following earmarks are included in bill language for 
the Rural Community Advancement Program: Federally Recognized 
Native American Tribes, $12,000,000, of which $250,000 is for 
transportation technical assistance; the Rural Community 
Development Initiative, $6,000,000; hazardous weather early 
warning systems, $5,000,000; transportation technical 
assistance, $500,000; rural partnership technical assistance 
grants, $5,000,000; Mississippi Delta region counties, 
$2,000,000; loans for marketing and processing biobased 
products, $2,000,000; water and waste disposal systems in the 
Colonias, $20,000,000; water and waste disposal systems in 
Alaska, $20,000,000; technical assistance for rural waste 
systems, $18,515,000; $9,500,000 for a circuit rider program; 
empowerment zones, enterprise communities and Rural Area 
Economic Partnership Zones, $42,574,650, of which, $30,000,000 
is for rural utilities programs.
    The Committee notes that lack of transportation is among 
the many economic hardships facing Native Americans. The 
availability of transit for persons without cars is nearly 
three times worse for Native American communities than 
elsewhere in the United States. The Committee has provided an 
earmark of $250,000 to develop the transportation capabilities 
of these communities so that they can have better access to 
employment, education and health care.
    Of the funds provided for technical assistance for rural 
waste systems, the Committee directs that $7,300,000 be 
designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs.
    The Committee notes that tourism can provide substantial 
income to economically depressed rural areas of the United 
States and that communities in states such as Vermont have 
developed successful programs for agritourism. The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 in the bill for agritourism and directs 
the Department to cooperate closely with communities seeking 
assistance for such programs.
    The Committee provides $6,000,000 for the Rural Community 
Development Initiative (RCDI). The fiscal year 2000 legislation 
also provided $6,000,000 for this initiative but there is no 
indication to date that any funds have actually been used for 
the benefit of rural America. The Committee directs the 
Department to ensure that the RCDI delivers positive benefit to 
rural communities.
    Of the funds provided in the bill for the Rural Business 
Opportunity Grants program, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide $2,000,000 for projects in communities 
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
Area Partnership Zones.
    The Committee supports continued efforts to provide 
adequate technical service for centrally owned and managed 
cluster well systems. Therefore, the Committee supports the 
Well-Care program and recognizes needs that can be filled 
through the water and waste loan and grant programs.

                         Rural Housing Service

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

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL




2000 loan level.......................................  \1\ $4,589,373,0
                                                                      00
2001 budget estimate..................................     5,385,009,000
Provided in the bill..................................     5,073,497,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level...................................      +484,124,000
    2001 budget estimate..............................      -311,512,000


\1\ Excludes $70,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-
  113 enacted November 29, 1999.

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

                          committee provisions

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2000 level     FY 2001 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
    Low-income family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................     \1\ $1,100,000         $1,300,000         $1,100,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................          3,200,000          3,700,000          3,700,000
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................            114,321            120,000            114,321
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................            100,000            200,000            100,000
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................         \2\ 32,396             40,000             32,396
    Farm labor (sec. 514)..............................         \3\ 25,001              \4\ 0             ......
    Credit sales of acquired property..................              7,503             15,000             16,780
    Site loans (sec. 524)..............................              5,152              5,000              5,000
    Self-help housing land development fund............              5,000              5,009              5,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan authorization........................          4,589,373          5,385,009          5,073,497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $50,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\2\ Excludes $15,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\3\ Excludes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\4\ The budget requests these loans in the Farm Labor Program account.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels


                                                            Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative
                                                              subsidy            subsidy            expenses

2000 appropriation.....................................   \1\ $161,560,000        $20,000,000       $375,879,000
2001 budget estimate...................................        284,811,000         47,440,000        409,233,000
Provided in the bill...................................  .................  .................  .................
Comparison:
  2000 appropriation...................................  .................  .................  .................
  2001 budget estimate.................................  .................  .................  .................


\1\ Excludes $11,099,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 2000 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 2001, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 2000 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by the Office of Management and Budget.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2000 level     FY 2001 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................        \1\ $93,830           $208,780           $176,760
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................             19,520             44,400              7,400
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................          \2\ 9,900             14,176             11,481
    Farm labor (sec. 514)..............................         \3\ 11,308              \4\ 0             ......
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................             45,363             59,124             56,326
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................                480              3,040              1,520
    Credit sales of acquired property..................                874              2,452                874
    Housing site dev. (sec. 524).......................                  4                  0             ......
    Self-help housing land development fund............                281                279                279
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies............................            192,659            332,251            254,640
RHIF expenses:
    Administrative expenses............................            375,879            409,233            375,879
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $4,265,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\2\ Excludes $4,584,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\3\ Excludes $2,250,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\4\ The budget requests these loans in the Farm Labor Program account.


    The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides the following additional 
amounts: $25,000,000 for section 502 direct loans providing for 
a loan level of $296,000,000; $4,000,000 for section 504 
housing repair providing for a loan level of $13,000,000 and 
$15,872,000 for section 515 rental housing providing for a loan 
level of $40,000,000. These additional funding levels are not 
indicated in the previous table.
    The Committee provides bill language increasing the single-
family housing loan guarantee fee from one percent to two 
percent. This change was proposed in the Administration's 
fiscal year 2001 budget.

                       rental assistance program

2000 appropriation .....................................    $640,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     680,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     655,900,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................     +15,900,000
    2001 budget estimate................................     -24,100,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $655,900,000, an increase of $15,900,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$24,100,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides an additional $13,600,000 for 
the rental assistance program that is not indicated in the 
previous table.

                  mutual and self-help housing grants

2000 appropriation......................................     $28,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      40,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      28,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................     -12,000,000

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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $28,000,000, the same as the 
amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$12,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides an additional $6,000,000 for 
the mutual and self-help housing grants that is not indicated 
in the previous table.

                       farm labor program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Loan level       Subsidy level        Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 appropriation \1\....................................                 0                 0                 0
2001 budget estimate......................................       $30,000,000       $15,777,000       $20,000,000
Provided in the bill......................................        28,520,000        15,000,000        15,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation....................................       +28,520,000       +15,000,000       +15,000,000
    2001 budget estimate..................................        -1,480,000          -777,000        -5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Fiscal Year 2000, farm labor housing loans were included in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, and farm
  labor grants were included in Rural Housing Assistance Grants.

    This new account consolidates three farm labor programs 
into one account. This consolidation will provide more 
flexibility for distributing rural farm labor housing 
assistance. The account consists of direct farm labor housing 
loans, domestic farm labor housing grants and low-income 
migrant and seasonal farmworker grants.
    The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized 
under section 514, and the rural housing for domestic farm 
labor housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of 
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and 
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent 
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for 
construction of new structures, site acquisition and 
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and 
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining 
halls, community rooms and infirmaries.
    The low-income migrant and seasonal farmworker grants are 
made to public agencies or private organizations with tax 
exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
code of 1986, that have experience in providing services to 
low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The type of 
assistance to be provided is determined by the Secretary of 
Agriculture.

                          committee provisions

    For the Farm Labor Program Account, the Committee provides 
a loan subsidy of $15,000,000 which supports a loan level of 
$28,520,000 instead of a loan subsidy of $15,777,000 which 
supports a loan level of $30,000,000 which was the budget 
request. The Committee also provides an additional $15,000,000 
in grants, a decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request. 
Of the $15,000,000 in grants, $12,000,000 is for farm labor 
housing grants and $3,000,000 is for grants for migrant and 
seasonal farmworkers.
    The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides an additional $5,000,000 for 
grants to low-income and migrant seasonal farm workers. The 
Committee further notes that the Administration has provided 
from the Fund for Rural America an additional $2,500,000 for 
grants for farmworker housing for fiscal year 2000. These 
additional funding levels are not indicated in the previous 
table.

                    rural housing assistance grants

2000 appropriation...................................... \1\ $45,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................  \2\ 39,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      39,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      -6,000,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Excludes $7,250,000 for farm labor housing grants and $7,250,000 for 
very low-income housing grants pursuant to the FY 2000 Supplemental, 
P.L. 106-113 enacted November 29, 1999.
\2\ Rural housing for domestic farm labor grants are requested in the 
Farm Labor Program account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following programs are consolidated under the Rural 
Housing Assistance Grants: very low-income housing repair 
grants, rural housing preservation grants, compensation for 
construction defects, and supervisory and technical assistance 
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 program makes grants to very low-income 
families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to 
make such dwellings, safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to 
the health of the occupants, their families, or the community. 
A grant can be made in combination with a Section 504 very low-
income housing repair loan.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair 
for low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the 
preservation program is to improve the delivery of 
rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing 
organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will 
compete on a state-by-state basis for grants funds. These funds 
may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to 
finance home repair. The program is administered by local 
grantees.
    Compensation for Construction Defects provides funds for 
grants to eligible section 502 borrowers to correct structural 
defects, or to pay claims of owners arising from such defects 
on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial 
assistance.
    The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is 
carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of 
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants 
are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for 
packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502, 
504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
amended. The assistance is to be directed to underserved areas 
where at least 20 percent or more of the population is at or 
below the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the 
population resides in substandard housing. Under section 525, 
grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations 
and other associations for the developing, conducting, 
administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory 
assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal, 
State, and local housing programs for low-income families in 
rural areas.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $39,000,000, a decrease 
of $6,000,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 
and the same as the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

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

                          committee provisions

    Current economic conditions, together with the rapid 
changes taking place throughout the global economy, underscore 
the need for policies and programs to strengthen the ability of 
farmers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts to 
improve their income, manage their risk, move more into value-
added production and processing, and capture a larger share of 
the consumer dollar. Programs carried out by Cooperative 
Services within the Rural Business and Cooperative Service as 
authorized under the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 
U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b)), including those related to research, 
education and technical assistance, play an important role in 
helping promote such cooperative self-help efforts for the 
benefit of farmers. Accordingly, the Committee believes such 
programs should be given a high priority to ensure the levels 
of funding and staffing necessary to meet their objectives.

              rural development loan fund program account

                          estimated loan level

2000 loan level.........................................     $38,256,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      64,495,000
Provided in the bill....................................      38,256,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level.....................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................     -26,239,000

    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 (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 2001, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $38,256,000, the same as 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$26,239,000 below as the budget request.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels


                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2000 appropriation..................       $16,615,000        $3,337,000
2001 budget estimate................        32,834,000         3,640,000
Provided in the bill................        19,476,000         3,337,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..............        +2,861,000  ................
    2001 budget estimates...........       -13,358,000          -303,000


            rural economic development loans program account

                          estimated loan level

2000 loan level.........................................     $15,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      15,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      15,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level.....................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $15,000,000, the 
same as provided for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee has provided language, requested by the 
Administration, to use earnings generated by the interest 
differential on voluntary cushion of credit payments made by 
Rural Utilities Service borrowers to provide necessary loan 
subsidies for rural economic development loans. By using these 
earnings for subsidy budget authority, additional loans funds 
will be available to rural communities. The discretionary cost 
of these loans is offset by reductions to rural economic 
development grants made from the cushion of credit.

                         estimated loan subsidy

                                                     Direct loan subsidy
2000 appropriation......................................  \1\ $3,453,000
2001 budget estimate....................................   \1\ 3,911,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,911,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................        +458,000
    2001 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit 
payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act 
of 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  rural cooperative development grants

2000 appropriation......................................      $6,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      11,500,000
Provided in the bill....................................       6,500,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................        +500,000
    2001 budget estimate................................      -5,000,000

    Rural Cooperative Development Grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-federal sources. Grants are competitive and 
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA) 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State department of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204. The funds are used for Cooperative Research Agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities to address critical 
operational, organizational and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $6,500,000, an increase of 
$500,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a 
decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request.
    Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,000,000 is provided 
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

       National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund




2000 appropriation....................................                 0
2001 budget estimate..................................        $5,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,000,000
Comparison:
  2000 appropriation..................................        +5,000,000
  2001 budget estimate................................  ................


    The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center was 
established by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996 to promote activities to strengthen and enhance 
production or marketing of sheep and goat products in the 
United States. The Center may provide loans or grants to 
eligible entities to provide assistance to the industry for 
infrastructure development, business development, production, 
resource development, and market and environmental research. 
The 1996 Act provided $20,000,000 in mandatory funding for the 
establishment and operation of the Center and authorized 
additional discretionary appropriations of $30,000,000.

                          committee provisions

    For the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center 
Revolving Fund the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$5,000,000, the same as the budget request. No funds were 
provided for this account in fiscal year 2000.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level.........................................  $2,611,500,000
2001 budget estimate....................................   2,045,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................   2,040,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level.....................................    -571,500,000
    2001 budget estimate................................      -5,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels for the rural 
electrification and telecommunications loan program account:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2000 enacted  FY 2001 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................      $121,500,000       $50,000,000       $50,000,000
        Direct, Municipal rate............................       295,000,000       300,000,000       295,000,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................     1,700,000,000       800,000,000       800,000,000
        Private Sector Guarantee..........................  ................       400,000,000       400,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................     2,116,500,000     1,550,000,000     1,545,000,000
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5%........................................        75,000,000        75,000,000        75,000,000
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................       300,000,000       300,000,000       300,000,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................       120,000,000       120,000,000       120,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................       495,000,000       495,000,000       495,000,000
                                                           =====================================================
            Total, Loan authorizations....................     2,611,500,000     2,045,000,000     2,040,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2000 enacted  FY 2001 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................        $1,095,000        $4,980,000        $4,980,000
        Direct, Municipal rate............................        10,827,000        20,850,000        20,480,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................  ................  ................  ................
        Private Sector Guarantee..........................  ................            40,000            40,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................        11,922,000        25,870,000        25,500,000
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5%........................................           840,000         7,770,000         7,770,000
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................         2,370,000  ................  ................
        Direct, FFB.......................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................         3,210,000         7,770,000         7,770,000
                                                           =====================================================
            Total, Loan subsidies.........................        15,132,000        33,640,000        33,270,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2001, as well 
as for administrative expenses.
    The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
supplemental legislation provides an additional $1,021,000 for 
rural utilities 5 percent hardship loans providing for a loan 
level of $113,250,000. These additional amounts are not 
indicated in the previous table.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level.........................................    $175,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     175,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     175,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 loan level.....................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a 
loan level of $175,000,000, the same as the level for fiscal 
year 2000 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal 
year 2000 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock 
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
    The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language 
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank 
Liquidating Account to pay for loan subsidies or administrative 
expenses of the Rural Telephone Bank.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS


                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2000 appropriation..................        $3,290,000        $3,000,000
2001 budget estimate................         2,590,000         3,000,000
Provided in the bill................         2,590,000         3,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..............          -700,000  ................
    2001 budget estimate............  ................  ................


    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 2001, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM


                                                                   Loan level      Subsidy level      Grants

2000 appropriation............................................      $200,000,000        $700,000     $20,000,000
2001 budget estimate..........................................       400,000,000               0      27,000,000
Provided in the bill..........................................       400,000,000               0      19,500,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation........................................      +200,000,000        -700,000        -500,000
    2001 budget estimates.....................................  ................  ..............      -7,500,000



    The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was 
authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 
of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve 
the quality of phone services, provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $19,500,000, a decrease 
of $1,200,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and a decrease of $7,500,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program: The aquaculture education, training and technical 
support initiative at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic 
Institution at Ft. Pierce, FL and Florida State University; 
development of the Telecommunications Center for Education by 
the University Colleges of Technology at the State University 
of New York; establishment of a distance learning site at the 
Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA; a distance learning 
and telemedicine program for the Southwest Virginia Education 
and Training Network; the distance learning program at Peirce 
College in Philadelphia, PA; development of a rural outreach 
and telemedicine network for Community Medical Centers based in 
Fresno, CA; a project of the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 
Institute (NM) to provide geospatial technology transfer to 
tribal nations; funding for a distance learning laboratory to 
supplement agricultural training for the Foothills Technical 
Institute (AR); and a partnership between the Wheeling (WV) 
Jesuit University Center of Educational Technologies with the 
Thomas Education Center to provide distance learning for local 
communities.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

2000 appropriation......................................        $554,000
2001 budget estimate....................................         570,000
Provided in the bill....................................         554,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................         -16,000

    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, nutrition and consumer activities. The 
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the 
Food and Nutrition Service.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services the Committee provides $554,000, the same 
amount as provided in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$16,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture 
consider a pilot program with the Alisal Union School District 
in Salinas, California to combine the administration of the 
Summer food service program and the School lunch program.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an 
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in 
this country. Nutrition assistance programs are intended to 
provide access to a nutritionally adequate diet for families 
and persons with low-incomes, and encourage better eating 
patterns among the Nation's children. These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--Federal assistance is provided 
to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and 
breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades 
or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers 
and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the special milk program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program is aimed at making more 
effective use of the Nation's food supply and at improving 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most 
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used 
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also 
includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. The Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized 
a block grant for Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico which 
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a 
nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to 
the needs of its low-income households.
    The program includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. The program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity 
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health 
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants, 
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by 
providing food packages designed to supplement each 
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking. 
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health 
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other 
approved methods which a cooperating State health agency may 
select.
    The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides (WIC or WIC-
eligible) participants with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers markets. The program is designed to accomplish two 
major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers' 
markets by low-income households.
    The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP).--This program 
combines funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
(CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding 
women with low-incomes who reside in approved project areas. In 
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects 
directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.
    Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural 
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States 
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is 
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting 
administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use 
in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS 
administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all 
disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are 
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
    Food Program Administration.--This account represents most 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion (CNPP). As of September 30, 1999, there were 1,539 
full-time permanent and 105 part-time and temporary employees 
in the agency. There were 539 in the Washington headquarters 
and 1,000 in the field, which includes 613 in seven regional 
offices and the balance in four food stamp compliance offices; 
one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; one 
administrative review office; and 69 field offices. The Center 
oversees improvements in and revisions to the nutrition 
guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing and 
coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to 
improve the health of all Americans.
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply 
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of 
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of 
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide 
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from 
general and continued hunger.

                        child nutrition programs


                                                               Direct         Transfer from      Total program
                                                           appropriation        section 32           level

2000 appropriation.....................................     $4,611,829,000     $4,935,199,000     $9,554,028,000
2001 budget estimate...................................      4,578,482,000      4,967,574,000      9,546,056,000
Provided in the bill...................................      4,407,460,000      5,127,579,000      9,535,039,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation.................................       -204,369,000       +192,380,000        -18,989,000
    2001 budget estimate...............................       -171,022,000       +160,005,000        -11,017,000



    Working through State agencies, the Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS) provides Federal assistance in cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of this program is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the 
School Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program; the Summer 
Food Service Program; and Child and Adult Care Food Programs. 
In addition, the Special Milk Program provides funding for milk 
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit 
child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally 
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either 
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level. 
FNS provides cash subsidies to State administered programs and 
directly administers the program in the States which have 
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. Grants are 
also made for nutritional training and surveys and for State 
administrative expenses. Under current legislation, most of 
these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates 
established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts 
actually served by the States.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child 
nutrition provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorizes the 
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for 
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
    School Breakfast Program (SBP).--(1) Authorizes a pilot 
project to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to 
all students without regard to family income; and (2) requires 
participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection 
conducted by a State or local agency.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Authorizes 
payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in 
after-school programs. Permanently authorizes and provides 
funds for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless 
children and family day care homes in low-income areas. 
Beginning on July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program 
and the Homeless Summer Food Service Program transfer into 
CACFP.
    National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Significantly 
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in 
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in 
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a 
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
    Special Milk Program.--Through the Special Milk Program, 
funds are provided to State agencies to reimburse eligible 
participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk 
consumed. Under Public Law 97-35, participation in the Special 
Milk Program is restricted to schools and institutions that do 
not participate in another meal service program authorized by 
the Child Nutrition or School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 
1986, based on authority in Public Law 99-661, children in 
split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do 
not have access to the meal service programs operating in those 
schools may participate in the program.

                          committee provisions

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 
total of $9,535,039,000, a decrease of $18,989,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$11,017,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $4,407,460,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$5,127,579,000 is by transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:
    School lunch program................................  $5,387,523,000
    School breakfast program............................   1,495,684,000
    Child and adult care food program...................   1,807,435,000
    Summer food service program.........................     323,499,000
    Special milk program................................      16,843,000
    State administrative expenses.......................     127,321,000
    Commodity procurement and computer support..........     360,223,000
    School meals initiative.............................      10,000,000
    Food safety education...............................       2,000,000
    Coordinated review effort...........................       4,511,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................  $9,535,039,000

    The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the School Meals 
Initiative. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food 
service training grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical 
assistance materials; $800,000 for the National Food Service 
Management Institute cooperative agreement for food service; 
$400,000 for print and electronic food service resource 
systems; and $3,200,000 for other activities.
    The Department invests a significant amount of money in the 
school nutrition programs. The Committee is concerned about the 
effect foods sold in competition with the school meal programs 
may be having on the integrity of the program. Specifically, 
the Department should review, and include in a report 
information on any statutory limits or judicial rulings that 
restrict the ability of the Department to regulate these 
competitive foods. The Committee urges the Department to review 
the effect that competitive foods may have on the school meal 
programs and to report back to the Committee on this subject.
    The Committee has included language that allows the 
Secretary to transfer $6,000,000 from the WIC account to the 
Child Nutrition Program, to complete the funding for the school 
breakfast pilot project, once the fiscal year 2000 carryover is 
determined to be in excess of $100,000,000.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

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

2000 appropriation......................................  $4,032,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................   4,148,100,000
Provided in the bill....................................   4,067,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................     +35,000,000
    2001 budget estimate................................     -81,100,000

    The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant, 
breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children 
up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through 
2003 and added several provisions to the program. The act 
requires that an individual seeking certification or 
recertification in the program must provide documentation of 
family income.
    Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.--The act permits State 
agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder 
offering the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State 
agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
the weighted average retail price for different brands of 
formula in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
    The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC 
participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers' markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and 
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.

                          committee provisions

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,067,000,000, an increase of $35,000,000 
above the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease 
of $81,100,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that WIC participation has decreased 
dramatically. Since October 1999 when WIC participation was 
7.449 million, the number of monthly participants has dropped 
to 7.117 million as of February 2000. That is a decrease of 
more than 332,000 participants.
    This Committee believes that WIC is one of the best 
programs government has to offer to address the vulnerabilities 
that at-risk pregnant and post partum women, infants and 
children have available to them. Accordingly, the Committee has 
provided consistent, bipartisan support for the WIC program. 
But at a time when participation in the program is showing a 
precipitous drop-off, the Committee is in a position to 
continue to help the WIC program as well as other important 
programs in this bill.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request estimates 
that WIC participation will average 7.4 million during fiscal 
2001 and end fiscal year 2001 with 7.5 million participants. 
There is nothing in the WIC participation data that indicates 
such a participation level can be reached. The current 
projected WIC carry over ranges from $160,000,000 to over 
$200,000,000 based on current average participation levels. The 
Committee recommendation provides a $35,000,000 increase over 
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, and allows for average 
monthly participation of at least 7.4 million throughout fiscal 
year 2001. Even then, the WIC program will still carry over 
more then $100,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommendation includes language to allow 
funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer systems 
and raises the authorized level of infrastructure funding to 
accommodate the funding level needed to develop EBT systems.
    The Committee maintains language regarding the Farmers 
Market Nutrition Program that makes the first $10 million 
available for that program within 45 days of the enactment of 
this Act with the balance becoming available upon the 
determination that funds are not needed to maintain caseload.
    The Committee understands that the Food and Nutrition 
Service is considering a proposed regulation that would broaden 
the variety of produce available for purchase under the WIC 
program. We understand that this action is based on the recent 
FNS report titled Review of the Nutritional Status of WIC 
Participants which concluded that participating WIC mothers and 
children were deficient in vital nutrients found in fruits and 
vegetables. The committee strongly supports this proposal and 
expects USDA to expeditiously move forward to ensure that WIC 
vouchers are broadened to ensure that a variety of fresh fruits 
and vegetables are available for purchase by WIC participants.
    The Committee is concerned that when our Nation's military 
personnel are transferred to overseas posts they are no longer 
eligible for WIC benefits. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a solution to this problem.
    The Committee includes language that permits the Secretary 
to transfer any carryover funds in excess of $100,000,000 to 
fund the remaining piece of the school breakfast pilot project; 
an additional $5,000,000 for the commodity supplemental food 
program; and $10,000,000 for the elderly feeding program with 
prior notification to the Committee on Appropriations.
    While the Committee supports and encourages state and local 
agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of 
participant referral to other health care services, it 
recognizes the tremendous constraints that WIC programs are 
experiencing as a result of expanding health care priorities. 
The Committee also recognizes that the Department's broad 
interpretation of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, with respect 
to the delivery of screening, assessment and referral services, 
on behalf of other federal agencies or departments. The 
delivery of which may jeopardize WIC agencies' ability to 
deliver the core mission of WIC program services--quality 
nutrition education and counseling, breast-feeding promotion 
and support, and related health care services. The Committee 
wishes to clarify that while WIC plays an important role in 
screening and referral to other health care services, it was 
never the Committee's intention that WIC should perform 
aggressive screening, referral and assessment functions on 
behalf of other programs, nor was it the Committee's intention 
that WIC State and Local agencies should assume the full burden 
of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost sharing 
agreements. The Committee again includes bill language to 
preserve WIC funding for authorized WIC services and again 
directs the Secretary to work with other Federal departments 
and agencies to ensure that except for basic education and 
referral purposes, WIC funds are not used to pay the 
administrative expenses or to coordinate operations or 
activities of other Federal agency services, activities or 
programs not authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition 
Act of 1966, unless fully reimbursed by those agencies.
    The Committee is concerned about the Department's failure 
to publish a final rule on WIC Food Delivery Systems. This rule 
was first published for public comment in December 1990, and 
republished for public comment in June 1999. State and local 
WIC agencies have done their best to protect the integrity of 
the WIC program; however, they have been hampered in their 
efforts to ensure full compliance because of a lack of adequate 
federal regulation. The needs of WIC participants to receive 
the supplementary foods that are essential to their overall 
health and nutritional well-being and the interests of the 
American people to be protected from fraud and abuse require 
that a final rule be published. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to release the final rule on WIC Food Delivery 
Systems no later than October 31, 2000.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

                           food stamp program

2000 appropriation...................................... $21,071,751,000
2001 budget estimate....................................  22,131,993,000
Provided in the bill....................................  21,231,993,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................    +160,242,000
    2001 budget estimate................................    -900,000,000

    The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service 
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which 
are updated annually.
    Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for 
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or 
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal 
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained 
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the 
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 
By the end of fiscal year 1999, thirty-two systems (Alabama, 
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont) and the District of Columbia 
are Statewide and eight systems (California, Iowa, Kentucky, 
New York, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) are in some 
stage of planning or implementing their EBT systems.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.

                          administrative costs

    All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for 
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality 
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 
Federal Government and the States on a 50-50 basis.
    In addition, State agencies which reduce quality control 
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, State agencies 
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the 
program on Indian reservations. The Food Stamp Program is in 
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the 
District of Columbia.
    The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the 
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on 
States which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed 
target.
    Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a 
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives 
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition 
assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, 
funding for this block grant program was included under the 
food stamp appropriation account.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 
$21,231,993,000, an increase of $160,242,000 above the amount 
available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $900,000,000 
below the budget request. The total amount includes 
$100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2001; 
$1,301,000,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and 
$100,000,000 for the emergency food assistance program.
    The Committee does not concur with the budget request for a 
$1,000,000,000 reserve for the food stamp program, but provides 
$100,000,000, the same amount as fiscal year 2000.
    Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
must submit a yearly plan to the Secretary of Agriculture that 
contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits 
under the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico 
are to be provided during the following fiscal year. The 
Secretary must approve or disapprove this plan by August 1 of 
the fiscal year that it is submitted. The Committee strongly 
urges the Secretary not to approve any NAP plan that does not 
require at least 75 percent of NAP funds to be spent on food at 
businesses where staple foods make up more than 50 percent of 
eligible food sales. Such a requirement will help to ensure 
that benefits distributed under NAP are used for their 
congressionally-intended purpose: to provide food assistance to 
needy persons.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
    The Committee is encouraged by the implementation of EBT 
systems around the country and supports the goal that all 
States must be operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee, no later than 
120 days after enactment of this Act, on efforts by the Food 
and Nutrition Service to ensure that all States will be 
operating an EBT system by 2002.
    The Committee believes the agency should focus more on 
preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food 
stamps. Two years ago, the Committee urged the Food and 
Nutrition Service, FNS, to require preauthorization visits for 
all high risk stores. The Committee is disappointed that more 
preauthorization visits have not been required and directs the 
agency to work with its field offices to ensure that all new 
high risk retailer applicants are visited before they are 
authorized to participate in the program.
    The Committee also agrees with a previous Inspector General 
recommendation that the National office needs to provide more 
direction and oversight to regional and field offices and that 
half of all field offices should be reviewed each year. FNS 
established new oversight procedures as a result of an OIG 1992 
retailer audit, but does not enforce them.
    The Committee includes $194,000,000 for the Food Stamp 
Employment and Training Program. The budget estimate for this 
program include a projected end-of-year carryover of 
$166,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000, and a projected 
end-of-year carryover of $210,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 
2001. The fiscal year 2001 recommended appropriation for 
Employment and Training has the effect of reducing the 
projected fiscal year 2001 end-of-year carryover to 
$185,000,000. There are no outlay savings associated with this 
recommended funding level.

                      Commodity Assistance Program

2000 appropriation......................................    $133,300,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     158,300,000
Provided in the bill....................................     138,300,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      +5,000,000
    2001 budget estimate................................     -20,000,000

    The Commodity Assistance Program provides funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative 
expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The CSFP provides 
supplemental food to infants and children up to age six, and to 
pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low-
incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
this program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized CSFP through 
fiscal year 2002. In addition, this law requires CCC to donate 
4 million pounds of nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of 
cheese to the program annually, subject to availability.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $138,300,000 for 
the commodity assistance program, an increase of $5,000,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease 
of $20,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has included $45,000,000 for administration 
of the emergency food assistance program. These funds may be 
used for administration purposes or for food costs at the 
discretion of the states.
    The Committee has included language that allows the 
Secretary to transfer $5,000,000 from the WIC account to the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program once the fiscal year 2000 
carryover is determined to be in excess of $100,000,000.
    The Committee supports the modification of administrative 
funding formula of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to 
be certain that per participant administrative funds are not 
reduced as a result of declining food costs.
    The Committee does not concur with the budget request to 
fund the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in this account.
    The Committee has included language providing $20,781,000 
for administrative expenses for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program.

                        food donations programs

2000 appropriation......................................    $141,081,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     151,081,000
Provided in the bill....................................     141,081,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................     -10,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $141,081,000, the same amount as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $10,000,000 
below the budget request. Included in this amount is 
$140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the elderly.
    The Committee has included language that allows the 
Secretary to transfer $10,000,000 from the WIC account to the 
Nutrition Program for the Elderly once the fiscal year 2000 
carryover is determined to be in excess of $100,000,000.

                      food program administration

2000 appropriation......................................\1\ $111,392,000
2001 budget estimate....................................     128,558,000
Provided in the bill....................................     116,392,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      +5,000,000
    2001 budget estimate................................     -12,166,000

\1\ Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of 
$1,000,000 (P.L. 106-78) for studies and evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for 
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children (WIC); the Commodity Assistance Program, including the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, administrative expenses of 
The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program; the Food Donations Programs, including the 
Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Pacific Island Assistance 
and Disaster Feeding; the Food Stamp Program and the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance 
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the 
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program 
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support 
functions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided 
$116,392,000, an increase of $5,000,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $12,166,000 
below the budget request.
    The Committee has maintained all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service's Food and 
Consumer Economics Division. The Committee does not reduce the 
funding available for studies and evaluations. Full discretion 
on how these funds are to be spent has been left to the 
Department. The Committee continues to believe that 
consolidating these funds under ERS is prudent and fiscally 
responsible. It is expected that FNS staff, as well as staff 
from other agencies, will provide input and continue to work 
with ERS staff to assure that all program and policy needs of 
the Department are being met.
    The Committee understands that small farmers may be 
precluded from bidding on contracts with school food service 
authorities by virtue of state efforts to require multi-item 
bidding. The Committee expects the Food and Nutrition Service 
to work with the Agricultural Marketing Service to identify 
cases in which such restrictions might exist, evaluate the 
impact of such restrictions, and take such action as necessary 
to facilitate sales by small producers to school food service 
authorities.
    The Committee includes language that no funds shall be used 
for the Colonias initiative included in the budget request or 
any other initiative related to the Colonias without the prior 
approval of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to 
acquire commodities from local farmer's markets and 
cooperatives for nutrition programs to the maximum extent 
possible.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager


                                                                                 Transfer from
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS

2000 appropriation............................................    $109,186,000    ($4,266,000)    ($113,452,000)
2001 budget estimate..........................................     113,587,000     (4,266,000)     (117,853,000)
Provided in the bill..........................................     109,186,000     (4,266,000)     (113,452,000)
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation........................................  ..............  ..............  ................
    2001 budget estimate......................................      -4,401,000  ..............        -4,401,000


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

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $109,186,000 and transfers of 
$4,266,000, for a total program level of $113,452,000, the same 
as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of 
$4,401,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee provides bill language permitting the 
Department to maintain up to $2,000,000 solely for the purpose 
of offsetting international currency fluctuations.
    The Committee also provides bill language allowing the 
Department more flexibility in hiring employees overseas so 
that it can compete effectively in hiring with other U.S. 
Government agencies.
    The Department has informed the Committee that restrictions 
on additional funding for the FAS imagery program have been 
lifted. The Committee believes that the imagery program 
provides an essential service to American agriculture while 
also serving as an important source of information on natural 
disasters in foreign countries which allows the Administration 
to make decisions on foreign assistance. The Committee supports 
more flexibility in funding from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation and directs the Department to report on the FAS 
imagery program in its next annual budget request to Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department does not 
hold the lead position in the federal government on 
international agricultural development activities. Without 
sufficient personnel trained in agricultural matters, it is 
unlikely that other agencies can provide better assistance than 
can the Department of Agriculture. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide a report on international development 
activities by location, identifying and quantifying the federal 
resources in use at each location. In particular, the Committee 
expects the report to include specific identification of 
whether personnel are assigned for short term or long term 
presence, or if they may be in an area only as temporary 
consultants.
    The Committee continues to believe that U.S. commodities 
are among the most powerful tools in our nation's arsenal. The 
Committee compliments the Department for its efforts to 
maximize the use of U.S. commodities around the world and 
encourages the Department to maintain this effort as a 
priority. In particular, the Committee remains strongly 
supportive of the monetization of commodities where the 
proceeds of such monetization are used to respond to the needs 
of the people of the recipient nations.
    The Committee expects that no appropriated funds will be 
used to pay for travel and other expenses of non-U.S. 
Government employees participating in the Reverse Trade Mission 
Program.
    The Secretary of Agriculture shall use currently available 
authorities to ensure that all forms of rice (rough, brown and 
milled) are fairly represented in all Department of Agriculture 
food aid, export market development, export promotion and other 
export related programs.
    The Committee expects that the Quality Samples Program 
(QSP) administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service will be 
continued to help develop new markets and expand existing 
markets for United States agricultural products. Funds made 
available through CCC to carry out activities under the QSP 
shall be no less than $2,500,000, the same level as in fiscal 
year 2000.

                             Public Law 480


                       program and grant accounts

                 public law 480 title I program account

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account are used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 2000 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes 
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies 
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local 
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation 
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. 
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period 
of up to 5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.
    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy 
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480 
programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2000 enacted  FY 2001 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
    Title I--Credit sales:
        Program level.....................................    ($166,298,000)    ($180,000,000)    ($180,000,000)
        Direct loans......................................     (145,298,000)     (159,678,000)     (159,678,000)
        Ocean freight differential........................        21,000,000        20,322,000        20,322,000
        Loan subsidies....................................       119,813,000       114,186,000       114,686,000
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level.....................................     (800,000,000)     (837,000,000)     (800,000,000)
        Appropriation.....................................       800,000,000       837,000,000       800,000,000
    Title III--Commodity grants:
        Program level.....................................           (- 0 -)           (- 0 -)           (- 0 -)
        Appropriation.....................................             - 0 -             - 0 -             - 0 -
    Salaries and expenses:
        General Sales Manager.............................         1,035,000         1,035,000         1,035,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        FSA...............................................           815,000           815,000           815,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................         1,850,000         1,850,000         1,850,000

          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level...............................     (966,298,000)   (1,017,000,000)     (980,000,000)
              Appropriation...............................       942,663,000       973,358,000       936,358,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has provided bill language allowing transfer 
authority, not to exceed 15 percent, among titles I, II, and 
III of PL 480.
    The Committee expects that monetized funds from food aid 
shipments to the Newly Independent States be used only for 
agricultural privatization and reform.

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                        administrative expenses




2000 appropriation....................................        $3,820,000
2001 budget estimate..................................         3,820,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,820,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation................................  ................
    2001 budget estimate..............................  ................



    Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided 
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to 
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program 
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. 
The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-term credit with 
repayment terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade 
Act of 1978, as amended, requires that not less than $5.5 
billion be made available annually from 1996 through 2002 for 
GSM-102 and GSM-103. The FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the 
Emerging Markets Export Credit Program.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the loan 
guarantees committed in 2000 and beyond, as well as for 
administrative expenses.
    Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is 
provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not 
by annual appropriation.

                          committee provisions

    For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $3,820,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget 
request.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses


                                                                               Prescription
                                                             Appropriation    drug  user fee    Total, FDA, S&E

2000 appropriation.......................................    $1,037,661,000      $145,434,000     $1,183,095,000
2001 budget estimate.....................................     1,156,905,000       149,273,000      1,306,178,000
Provided in the bill.....................................  \1\ 1,090,905,00       149,273,000      1,240,178,000
                                                                          0
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation...................................       +53,244,000        +3,839,000        +57,083,000
    2001 budget estimate.................................       -66,000,000  ................        -66,000,000

\1\ $1,117,905,000 (appropriation) minus $27,000,000 (rescission) equals $1,090,905,000 (net).

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal 
consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The 
agency's mission and sole objective is to protect and promote 
the public health through its science-based core activities of 
premarket review and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction 
over a wide variety of products that affect every person, every 
day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics 
including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological 
products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe 
and effective, as well as properly labeled.
    FDA works extensively with stakeholders--industry, 
consumers, and other interested parties--to: (1) set food and 
product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new 
drugs and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct 
and sponsor research studies to detect health hazards and 
violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency's 
base of scientific knowledge to allow for better regulatory 
decision-making; (4) inform business firms and consumers about 
FDA-related topics; (5) work with state and local agencies to 
develop programs that will supplement or complement those of 
FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods, drugs, medical 
devices and electronic products to ensure that they are safe, 
effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action when 
necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace and 
to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.
    FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to 
meet statutory requirements and its mission: research and 
development-fueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities; 
greater product complexity driven by breakthroughs in 
technology; growth in the recognized adverse effects associated 
with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats; 
emerging challenges in the international arena; and the 
increased volume and diversity of imports.

                          committee provisions

    For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee 
provides a total direct appropriation of $1,117,905,000 for 
salaries and expenses, rescinds $27,000,000 from prior 
appropriations, and makes available an additional $149,273,000 
in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, for 
a total of $1,240,178,000. This is an increase of $57,083,000 
above the total amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a 
decrease of $66,000,000 below the budget request.
    Agricultural Products Testing Laboratory.--Within sums 
provided for food safety, the Committee directs the FDA to 
provide $1,500,000 for a contract with the New Mexico State 
University's Physical Science Laboratory to establish a 
laboratory in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The laboratory will 
conduct rapid screening analyses of fresh fruits and vegetables 
(imported and domestic) for microbiological contamination of 
products sampled by FDA in the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona area. 
The laboratory will augment FDA's capabilities and facilitate 
rapid testing of these perishable products.
    Competitive Exclusion Products.--The Committee finds that 
competitive exclusion products offer an innovative and valuable 
approach to reducing Salmonella and other harmful bacteria in 
poultry and livestock. The Committee is concerned, however, 
that only one competitive exclusion product has been approved 
to date despite public statements by FDA, USDA, and the 
President's Food Safety Council supporting this emerging 
technology. In view of significant public health benefits of 
competitive exclusion products, the FDA should review new 
animal drug applications for these products on an expedited 
basis.
    Contact dermatitis.--The Committee is aware that contact 
dermatitis is the most common occupational illness in the 
United States costing the U.S. economy over $1 billion 
annually. The American Academy of Dermatology and the American 
Contact Dermatitis Society estimate that nearly 3,000 chemicals 
and other materials can induce allergic contact dermatitis and 
over 50,000 chemicals are capable of producing skin irritation. 
The Committee grows increasingly concerned that U.S. physicians 
lag behind their counterparts in other countries in their 
ability to effectively diagnose, treat and train future 
physicians to care for this epidemic. Only 24 allergens have 
been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in 
patch test kits, the only available test for this skin disease. 
European, Canadian, and South American physicians have over 400 
allergens available for testing. The Committee directs the FDA 
to return regulatory authority for patch test kits and their 
allergens to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 
and further directs the Center to reinstate those allergens 
that were available to U.S. physicians prior to 1986, and 
expedite the approval of all other allergens in use in Europe 
and Canada, but which have not been approved for use in the 
United States.
    Dietary supplements.--The Committee directs the Food and 
Drug Administration to report on the implementation of the 
decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 
Pearson v. Shalala regarding dietary supplement health claims. 
This report is to include the specific steps the agency plans 
to follow to carry out the decision with regard to dietary 
supplements, as well as the agency's basis for treating dietary 
supplements differently from conventional foods.
    The Committee instructs the Food and Drug Administration to 
report to the Committee within 6 months of enactment of the 
bill, a summary of the total dollar amount spent in fiscal year 
2000 in assessing the safety of dietary supplements, and in 
meeting the legal statutory burden under the Dietary Supplement 
Health and Education Act of 1994 for demonstrating safety 
problems with dietary supplements.
    The Committee instructs the Food and Drug Administration to 
report to the Committee, within 6 months of enactment of the 
bill, on the dollar cost to implement the Dietary Supplement 
Strategy 10 Year Plan.
    Food Irradiation.--The Conference Report accompanying the 
FDA Modernization Act of 1997 directed FDA to complete a final 
rule by November 1998 revising its regulations regarding the 
labeling of foods treated with ionizing radiation. To date, the 
FDA has not completed this requirement. The Committee believes 
that any required disclosure should not be perceived as a 
warning or give rise to inappropriate consumer anxiety. The 
Committee expects FDA to make final by September 30, 2001 
regulations that prescribe alternative truthful and non-
misleading labeling disclosures that may be used on foods 
treated by ionizing radiation in lieu of the existing FDA-
required disclosure. The Committee expects a report on the 
status of the proposed regulation by November 15, 2000.
    Generic Drugs.--It is the view of the Committee that one of 
the most effective and immediate means to address the rising 
cost of prescription drugs is to ensure that the American 
consumer has timely access to more affordable generic 
medicines. In recent years Congress has provided increased 
appropriations for the Office of Generic Drugs to hire more 
reviewers to reduce the backlog of generic applications and to 
accelerate generic drug approval. Despite such increases, 
current approval times for generic drugs are three times the 
statutory requirements. In an effort to continue to reduce 
approval times, the Committee directs that an increase of 
$1,500,000 (from within funds provided) shall be used for the 
upgrade of information technology systems that allow for the 
electronic submission of generic drug applications.
    Genetically modified foods.--The Committee expects the Food 
and Drug Administration to develop a unified effort to respond 
to consumer safety and environmental concerns while providing 
sufficient information that would allow consumers to make 
informed choices about the production and consumption of 
bioengineered foods. Any regulatory decision should be based on 
sound, verifiable science. The Committee also expects FDA to 
coordinate its activities with those of the Department of 
Agriculture to provide a unified approach across agency 
jurisdictions.
    Medical Devices.--The Committee notes that advances in 
research and development in the medical device industry are 
likely to increase the number of new technologies submitted for 
review by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) 
and the Center for Biologics, Evaluation and Research (CBER). 
Therefore, the Committee requests the FDA to dedicate a level 
of funds in the fiscal year 2002 budget request to meet 
statutory review times for medical devices. Further, the 
Committee urges the Center to continue its work to expand the 
list of eligible devices so as to improve the success of the 
third-party review program for medical devices, and to actively 
utilize its authority to contract with outside technical 
expertise when such expertise is needed to assist in the prompt 
and efficient review of breakthrough technologies.
    Mutual Recognition Activities/International 
Harmonization.--The Committee is concerned about the world-wide 
proliferation of regulatory regimes for medical devices and 
pharmaceutical products. In order to ensure that patients 
around the world receive the latest technology promptly, it is 
critical that the regulatory systems of the various nations of 
the world coordinate activities in such a way as to ensure the 
safety and efficacy of products, while limiting the burden of 
regulatory barriers to innovation and manufacture. The 
Committee is particularly concerned about the potential for 
barriers to the global marketing of products that are approved 
for use in the United States. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the Food and Drug Administration to report on the nature and 
scope of its activities to promote mutual recognition and 
international harmonization, aimed at approval systems as well 
as product surveillance. This report is to be submitted to the 
Committee by January 1, 2001.
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--Within the 
amounts provided for food safety, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for the National Center for Food Safety and 
Technology in Summit-Argo, Illinois, to continue collaborative 
research in food safety among government, academia, and private 
industry.
    Orphan drugs.--The Committee is concerned that the current 
method of review for biologics that are substantially 
equivalent to orphan drugs may be creating a competitive 
disadvantage for biologics. While concern for efficacy and 
safety remain paramount, the Committee expects the FDA to 
develop a system to treat biologics and chemical-based 
substances on a more equal basis when these alternatives to 
protected orphan drugs are developed.
    Radiopharmaceuticals.--The Committee believes that there is 
a need to have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clarify 
its existing enforcement authority and position on the 
compounding of radiopharmaceuticals. Radiopharmaceuticals are 
excluded from the exemptions provided by section 127 the Food 
and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (see 
21 USC 353a(e)(21)). With respect to radiopharmaceuticals, 
FDAMA was not intended to change the law that was in effect at 
the time of its enactment (H. Rep. No. 105-399, 105th Cong., 
1st Sess. 95 1997). Furthermore, the law at the time FDAMA was 
enacted did not exempt radiopharmaceuticals from the 
adulteration, misbranding, and new drug requirements of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, FDA should 
clarify its enforcement policy on the compounding of 
radiopharmaceuticals to stop the compounding of 
radiopharmaceuticals that are essentially copies of approved 
and commercially available drug products. The Committee urges 
the agency to promptly issue guidance setting forth its 
enforcement policy with regard to the compounding of 
radiopharmaceuticals, but nothing herein shall preclude the 
agency from taking enforcement action under current law prior 
to issuance of such guidance.
    Seafood Inspection.--The appropriations request included 
detailed authorization language which would transfer seafood 
inspection activities from the National Marine Fisheries 
Service to the Food and Drug Administration. The Committee 
feels strongly that this is a matter to be addressed by the 
authorization committee, and therefore has not included the 
requested authorization language.
    Secondary Market for Prescription Drugs.--The Committee 
supports the recent FDA action to delay the effective date for 
implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug 
Marketing Act until October 1, 2001 and reopen the 
administrative record in order to receive additional comments. 
The Committee believes the agency should thoroughly review the 
potential impact of the proposed provisions on the secondary 
wholesale pharmaceutical industry. The Committee directs the 
FDA to provide a report to the Committee by January 15, 2001 
summarizing the comments and issues raised and agency plans to 
address the concerns.
    Shellfish Safety.--FDA's Office of Seafood has a memorandum 
of understanding with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Commission (ISSC) to develop shellfish safety regulations. The 
Committee understands that the agency funds this agreement at a 
level of $200,000, and directs that this level of effort is to 
continue in fiscal year 2001.
    Tobacco.--On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court 
affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit that FDA lacks jurisdiction under the Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetics Act to regulate tobacco products. 
Subsequent to this decision, the Food and Drug Administration 
has taken steps to terminate contracts with State agencies 
regarding age and picture identification provisions that have 
been in effect, and the Agency is in the process of terminating 
the enforcement program. Therefore, the budget request of 
$39,000,000 to carry out these activities in fiscal year 2001 
is no longer required, and the Committee recommends reducing 
the budget request accordingly. In addition, the Committee 
recommends rescinding $27,000,000 of the funds provided for 
fiscal year 2000, which are no longer required under current 
law.
    Vibrio Vulnificus.--The Committee expects that FDA will 
continue its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Commission (ISSC) to promote educational and research 
activities related to Vibrio Vulnificus. The Committee directs 
the use of $250,000 for this effort, within the amounts 
appropriated for the Food Safety Initiative.
    Waste-management Education and Research Consortium.--Within 
sums provided for food safety, the Committee directs the Food 
and Drug Administration to provide not less than $100,000 for 
the Waste-management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) 
to continue its work in minimizing microbial hazards.
    Recommendations by activity.--The Committee recommends that 
of the total amount provided: (1) $302,557,000 shall be for the 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) 
$329,797,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research and related field activities in the Office of 
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $153,479,000 shall be for the Center 
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $62,761,000 
shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related 
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) 
$171,677,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health and for related field activities in the 
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $37,868,000 shall be for the 
National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) $25,855,000 
shall be for Rent and Related activities, other than the 
amounts paid to the General Services Administration; (8) 
$104,954,000 shall be for payments to the General Services 
Administration for rent and related costs; and (9) $78,230,000 
shall be for other activities, including the Office of the 
Commissioner, the Office of Senior Associate Commissioner, the 
Office of International and Constituent Relations, the Office 
of Policy, Planning, and Legislation, the Office of Management 
and Systems, and central services for these offices. Funds may 
be transferred from one specified activity to another with the 
prior approval of the Committee.

                        buildings and facilities

2000 appropriation......................................     $11,350,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      31,350,000
Provided in the bill....................................      11,350,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................................
    2001 budget estimate................................     -20,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$11,350,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2000 and a decrease of $20,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommends $8,350,000 for repairs and 
improvements to existing facilities, and $3,000,000 for 
continuing construction of phase III at the Arkansas Regional 
Laboratory. The Committee does not recommend the request for 
$20,000,000 for the first phase of construction of the 
replacement Los Angeles laboratory. This funding has been 
provided in House action on the bill H.R. 3908. While the 
Committee supports replacement of this laboratory, it does not 
recommend the request for advanced appropriation of $23,000,000 
for the second phase of Los Angeles construction. Such funds 
are not required at this time, and the Committee will consider 
this item in the future. The Committee is concerned about the 
impact the transfer of the FDA laboratories to Irvine will have 
on FDA employees who currently work at the FDA laboratories in 
Los Angeles. The Committee expects the FDA to retain these 
experienced employees and to take steps to minimize the impact 
on employees throughout the planning and implementation of the 
move to Irvine.
    Arkansas Regional Laboratory.--The Committee approves the 
full amount of the budget request of $3,000,000 which will go 
towards a portion of the third and final phase of the overall 
Arkansas Regional Laboratory project at Jefferson, Arkansas. 
This phase will provide for the renovation of the existing 
Building 50 in its entirety for joint Office of Regulatory 
Affairs and National Center for Toxicological Research 
administrative support space and the restoration of the 
laboratory project site.

                          Independent Agencies


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

2000 appropriation......................................     $63,000,000
2001 budget estimate....................................      72,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      69,000,000
Comparison:
    2000 appropriation..................................      +6,000,000
    2001 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers 
the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of 
the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures 
and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring 
their integrity, and protecting participants against abusive 
trade practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable 
the markets to better serve their designated function in 
providing a price discovery mechanism and as a means of 
offsetting price risk. In properly serving these functions, the 
futures markets contribute toward better planning, more 
efficient distribution and consumption, and more economical 
marketing.

                          committee provisions

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $69,000,000, an increase of 
$6,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and 
a decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses




2000 limitation.......................................     ($35,800,000)
2001 budget estimate..................................  ................
Provided in the bill..................................      (36,800,000)
Comparison:
    2000 limitation...................................      (+1,000,000)
    2001 budget estimate..............................     (+36,800,000)


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $36,800,000, an increase 
of $1,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 
and an increase of $36,800,000 above the budget request. The 
fiscal year 2001 budget proposed no limitation on the expenses 
of the Farm Credit Administration.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill 
for fiscal year 2001 are fundamentally the same as those 
included in last year's appropriations bill.
    Section 724: Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural 
America.
    Section 725: Language is included to limit the amount of 
funds available for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program to $174,000,000.
    Section 727: Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
    Section 728: Language is included that funds in this Act 
shall not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program 
that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-
owned cooperatives.
    Section 729: Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.
    Section 730: Language is included prohibiting the use of 
funds to carry out certain activities unless the Secretary of 
Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing 
equipment and charges a fees for those activities.
    Section 734: The Committee reminds the Administration of 
the Constitutional power of the Senate to advise and consent to 
treaties. The Committee notes with disapproval that this 
Administration exhibited disdain for the will of the Senate 
when the Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol in 
contravention of Senate Resolution 105-98, known as the Byrd-
Hagel Resolution, which was approved by a vote of 95 ayes and 0 
nays.
    The Committee notes with disapproval that nearly three 
years after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 
1997, it still has not been submitted to the Senate for advice 
and consent as to ratification. The Committee is concerned that 
such protracted refusal to make submission to the Senate flouts 
the powers and prerogatives of the Congress as a whole. The 
Committee directs that within three years of the date of 
adoption, the Kyoto Protocol shall be submitted by the 
Administration to the Senate for advice and consent as to 
ratification. The Committee also notes that the Kyoto Protocol 
has not yet entered into force pursuant to Article 25 of the 
Protocol.
    This year the Committee has clarified that funds shall not 
be spent for items found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and 
nowhere in the laws of the United States. These items include 
carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development 
Mechanism. The Committee has taken keen note of the 
Administration's comments that there has been confusion 
regarding this funding limitation. The Committee notes with 
disapproval dozens of expenditures by the Administration for 
the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. The Committee encourages United 
States exports to improve the environment of foreign nations 
and does so with express reference to the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Likewise all 
other provisions of the UNFCCC which have legislative enactment 
are encouraged.
    Section 735: Language is included requiring the Secretary 
of Agriculture to compensate wheat producers and handlers for 
losses due to karnal bunt not later than 45 days after the 
receipt of a valid claim.
    Section 736: This provision makes the towns of Lloyd, New 
York and Harris, New York eligible for rural development loans 
and grants.
    Section 737: This provision increases the fee on single 
family guaranteed loans from one percent to two percent.
    Section 738: This provision conforms the contracting 
authority for persons overseas employed by the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to the authority provided to the 
Department of State.
    Section 739: Language is included that extends the dairy 
price support program and delays the dairy recourse loan 
program.
    Section 740: Language is included that provides $4,000,000 
for a hunger fellowship program.
    Section 741: This bill includes language that supersedes 
Section 718 of Public Law 105-277, as amended, and provides 
that on a permanent basis beginning with fiscal year 2001, 
funds made available through the annual appropriations process 
for the market access program, or any program that replaces the 
market access program, may be used to promote any agricultural 
commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade 
Act of 1978, as amended, except for products that have been 
specifically excluded from the market access program by Section 
1302, Title I of Public Law 103-66, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
    Section 742: Language is included prohibiting the use of 
funds regarding certain floodplains in Arkansas.
    Section 743: Language is included that enhances the ability 
of the Friends of the National Arboretum to provide additional 
support for the National Arboretum.
    Section 744: Language is included that the Secretary shall 
include the value of lost production when compensating owners 
of trees destroyed as part of the Citrus Canker Eradication 
program in Florida.
    Section 745: The Committee is aware that USDA has recently 
issued a final rule regarding the use of Alternate Protein 
Products in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast 
Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Child and Adult Care 
Food Program. The Committee is also aware that prior to 
promulgating this rule, USDA asked meat and vegetable protein 
industry groups to work together to build consensus on the use 
of alternative protein products in USDA's feeding program and 
is aware USDA's final rule does not reflect this consensus. The 
Committee believes that these comments have merit and warranted 
careful consideration by the USDA. The Committee therefore 
instructs USDA to reinstate fortification requirements and to 
disclose to program participants meat and poultry products 
containing greater than 30% Alternative Protein Products.
    Section 746: This section provides that ratites and squab 
slaughtered for human consumption be subject to the poultry 
Products Inspection Act.
    Section 747: Language is included that provides for 
compensation, out of available funds, to nursery stock 
producers for losses caused by Hurricane Irene in October 1999.
    Section 748: The Committee has studied the Action Plan to 
Eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs, 
published on December 10, 1999. The Committee applauds and 
shares the commitment to egg safety evidenced by the plan. The 
Committee also expects that a thorough economic impact analysis 
of the action plan will be completed prior to the issuance of 
any proposed rule pursuant to the plan, in order to prevent any 
undue adverse impact on producers.
    In preparing regulations to implement the action plan, the 
Committee expects that the Food and Drug Administration and 
other relevant agencies will (1) combine proposed rules on 
Salmonella Enteritidis testing and HACCP-based prerequisite 
programs for shell egg producers, in order to expedite the 
implementation of quality assurance programs; (2) strongly 
consider including in their rulemaking a ban on the repackaging 
of eggs returned from retail establishments, as well as 
nationwide standards for ``sell-by'' or ``best-by'' dates; (3) 
modify the egg warning label proposed by the agency on July 6, 
1999, to ensure that the label is consistent with equivalent 
labels on meat and poultry products, and to take into account 
additional protective measures in the action plan; (4) to the 
extent funds are available, consider a program to indemnify 
producers who may be required to divert eggs to pasteurization, 
based on the difference in price received for diverted eggs and 
shell eggs sold in retail markets; and (5) report to the 
Committee on the procedures it will use to assure that any 
functions assigned to state agencies under the action plan will 
be implemented in a consistent manner in all jurisdictions. The 
Committee expects that where possible, the agency will utilize 
the services of personnel of the Agricultural Marketing Service 
(as well as state agency personnel cooperating with AMS under 
existing agreements) who already perform inspection or other 
functions in shell egg packing plants, under a cooperative 
agreement or similar arrangement whereby the Service's costs 
would be reimbursed by the agency.
    Section 749: Language is included that allows the USDA to 
make loans to poultry farmers who have incurred losses due to 
disasters.
    Section 750: Language is included that extends the time 
within which to compensate cotton producers in Georgia out of 
available funds.
    Section 751: Language is included that provides emergency 
funds for market/quality loss payments for apples and potatoes.
    Section 752: Language is included prohibiting the use of 
funds to reimburse crop insurance providers and agents for 
administrative and operating costs that exceed 20 percent of 
the premium.

       TITLE VIII--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT

    Language is included providing for Trade Sanctions Reform 
and Export Enhancement.

                    Transfer of Unexpended Balances

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the 
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are 
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
by clause 1(b)(3) of rule X.
    1. Office of the Secretary.--The bill allows the transfer 
of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to the Office of the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental 
payments account based on changing space requirements.
    3. Hazardous Materials Management.--The bill allows the 
funds appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials 
management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as 
required.
    4. Departmental Administration.--The bill requires 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill requires a portion of the funds 
appropriated to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be 
transferred to agencies.
    6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    7. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    8. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds 
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the 
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
    9. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    10. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm 
Service Agency salaries and expenses account.
    11. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--The bill 
provides that funds for administering loans shall be 
transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and Expenses 
account.
    12. Rural Community Advancement Program.--The bill provides 
that funds for certain administrative expenses may be 
transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and Expenses 
account.
    13. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; Rural 
Development Loan Program Account; Rural Electrification and 
Telecommunications Loans Program Account and Rural Telephone 
Bank Program Account.--The bill provides that administrative 
funds may be transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and 
Expenses Account.
    14. Rural Housing Assistance Program; Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program; and Rural Utilities Assistance 
Program.--The bill allows funds to be transferred between 
authorized programs within the account.
    15. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    16. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    17. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--The bill permits transfer of 
funds to other programs under certain conditions.
    18. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export 
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
    19. Public Law 480.--The bill allows for the transfer of up 
to 15 percent of the funds between title II and title III, and 
provides that funds made available for the cost of title I 
agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be 
used interchangeably.
    20. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses 
associated with credit reform.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law. In most instances, these 
provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, 
often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of 
the responsible legislative committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--Language is included which allows the transfer of 
limited amounts to and from this account.
    3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    4. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes 
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out 
research related to the production, processing or marketing of 
tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included that allows 
the Agricultural Research Service to grant an easement at the 
Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is 
included that authorizes the Agricultural Research Service to 
charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special 
use authorization for the occupancy or use of land and 
facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be credited 
to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until 
expended.
    5. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out research related to the production, 
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
    6. Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.--Language 
is included which provides that funds may be used to support 
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.
    7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing training to non-APHIS personnel.
    8. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority 
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows for flexibility if export activities require 
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable 
factors occur.
    9. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    10. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    11. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included that 
allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
payments.
    12. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which 
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and 
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
    13. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    14. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation 
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill 
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not 
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by 
states and counties is authorized by basic law. This paragraph 
also includes language carried in the bill since 1950, which 
prohibits the use of funds for demonstration projects 
authorized by the Act of April 27, 1935.
    15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language, 
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 
(P.L. 98-8) and all bills since 1984, provides that funds may 
be used for rehabilitation of existing works.
    16. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during the current fiscal year be funded for a five-year 
period.
    17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
Program Account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for loans to exceed seven percent.
    18. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    19. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    20. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to allow 
certain transfers of funds.
    21. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to limit 
funds available for employment and training.
    22. Commodity Assistance Program.--Language is included 
that allows a specific funding level for Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program administrative expenses.
    23. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received 
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities 
involving international development and technical cooperation. 
The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being used 
to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products. 
Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    24. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from 
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
    25. General Provisions.--
          Section 704: This provision permits the Secretary to 
        transfer funds made available by this Act, as well as 
        other available unobligated balances of the Department 
        of Agriculture, to the Working Capital fund for the 
        acquisition of plant and capital equipment, and 
        provides that no funds appropriated to an agency shall 
        be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
        approval of the agency administrator.
          Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is 
        again included which provides that certain 
        appropriations in this Act shall remain available until 
        expended where the programs or projects involved are 
        continuing in nature under the provisions of 
        authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation 
        does not specifically provide for extended 
        availability. This authority tends to result in savings 
        by preventing the wasteful practice often found in 
        government of rushing to commit funds at the end of the 
        fiscal year without due regard to the value of the 
        purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended 
        availability is also essential in view of the long lead 
        time frequently required to negotiate agreements or 
        contracts which normally extend over a period of more 
        than one year. Under these conditions such authority is 
        commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted 
        from basic law. These provisions have been carried 
        through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient 
        and effective program execution and to assure maximum 
        savings. They involve the following items: Animal and 
        Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund 
        to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the 
        integrated systems acquisition project, the boll weevil 
        program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm program, and 
        up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating 
        regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
        field automation and information management project; 
        funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative 
        State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds 
        for competitive research grants, and funds for the 
        Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm 
        Service Agency, salaries and expenses to county 
        committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
        country training program and up to $2,000,000 for 
        foreign currency fluctuations.
          Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal 
        year 1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on 
        cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This 
        provision is necessary because many universities 
        attempted to apply the same overhead rates to 
        cooperative agreements as was being applied to grants 
        and contracts, without giving consideration to the 
        cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead 
        charges.
          Section 710: This provision, added in 1987, provides 
        that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
        restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This 
        provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a 
        lower cost than space leased by GSA.
          Section 711: This provision provides that none of the 
        funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect 
        costs charged against agricultural research, education, 
        or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State 
        Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of 
        19 percent of total direct costs, except for grants 
        available under the Small Business Innovation and 
        Development Act.
          Section 712: This provision clarifies that loan 
        levels provided in the Act are to be considered 
        estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit 
        Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated 
        subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of 
        loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest 
        rates change, the amount of loan authority will 
        fluctuate.
          Section 713: This provision allows funds made 
        available in the current fiscal year for the Rural 
        Development Loan Fund Program Account; Rural Telephone 
        Bank Program Account; the Rural Electrification and 
        Telecommunications Loans Program Account; and the Rural 
        Housing Insurance Fund Program Account to remain 
        available until expended. The Credit Reform Act 
        requires that the lifetime costs of loans be 
        appropriated. Current law requires that funds 
        unobligated after five years expire. The life of some 
        loans extends well beyond the five- year period and 
        this provision allows funds appropriated to remain 
        available until the loans are closed out.
          Section 714: This provision provides that sums 
        necessary for the current fiscal year pay raises shall 
        be absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
          Section 715: This provision provides that the 
        Agricultural Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration; and the Animal 
        and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food 
        safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection 
        Service may use cooperative agreements.
          Section 716: This provision provides that the Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative 
        agreements.
          Section 717: Provides that not more than 5 percent of 
        Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be 
        retired in fiscal year 2001. The provision also 
        prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount 
        which has not been specifically authorized by law. The 
        provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated 
        funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating 
        account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank 
        that are in excess of current requirements.
          Section 718: Provides that of the funds made 
        available, not more than $1,500,000 shall be used to 
        cover expenses of activities related to all advisory 
        committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
        Department of Agriculture except for panels used to 
        comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to 
        evaluate competitive award grants.
          Section 719: Provides that none of the funds may be 
        used to carry out certain provisions of meat and 
        poultry inspection acts.
          Section 720: This provision prohibits any employee of 
        the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or 
        assigned to any other agency or office of the 
        Department for more than 30 days unless the 
        individual's employing agency or office is fully 
        reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
        salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
        assignment.
          Section 721: This provision prohibits the Department 
        of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to 
        any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or 
        responses to questions that are a result of information 
        requested for the appropriations hearing process.
          Section 722: Language is included that requires 
        approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
        concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
        Investment Review Board for acquisition of new 
        information technology systems or significant upgrades.
          Section 723: Language is included that requires 
        certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in 
        Appropriations Acts.
          Section 724: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out programs under the Fund 
        for Rural America.
          Section 725: Language is included to limit the amount 
        of funds available for the Environmental Quality 
        Incentives Program to $174,000,000.
          Section 726: Language is included to prohibit 
        contract acreage payments to a producer who plants wild 
        rice on contract acreage unless the contract payment is 
        reduced by an acre for each acre planted to wild rice.
          Section 727: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future 
        Agriculture and Food Systems.
          Section 728: Language is included that funds in this 
        Act shall not be used to carry out any commodity 
        purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or 
        participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
          Section 729: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to carry out the Conservation 
        Farm Option program.
          Section 730: Language is included prohibiting the use 
        of funds to carry out certain activities unless the 
        Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies 
        agricultural processing equipment and charges a fees 
        for those activities.
          Section 731: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to 
        Congress that assumes reductions from the previous 
        year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the 
        submission also identifies spending reductions which 
        should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
          Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the 
        use of funds to carry out a Community Food Security 
        program or any similar activity without the prior 
        approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both 
        Houses of Congress.
          Section 733: Language is included that prohibits the 
        use of the funds made available by this Act or any 
        other Act for the National Swine Research Center.
          Section 734: Language is included that provides that 
        hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto 
        Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon 
        emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development 
        Mechanism that are found solely in the Kyoto Protocol 
        and nowhere in the laws of the United States.
          Section 735: Language is included requiring the 
        Secretary of Agriculture to compensate wheat producers 
        and handlers for losses due to karnal bunt not later 
        than 45 days after the receipt of a valid claim.
          Section 736: This provision makes the towns of Lloyd, 
        New York and Harris, New York eligible for rural 
        development loans and grants.
          Section 737: This provision increases the fee on 
        single family guaranteed loans from one percent to two 
        percent.
          Section 738: This provision conforms the contracting 
        authority for persons overseas employed by the Foreign 
        Agricultural Service to the authority provided to the 
        Department of State.
          Section 739: Language is included that extends the 
        dairy price support program and delays the dairy 
        recourse loan program.
          Section 740: Language is included that provides 
        $4,000,000 for a hunger fellowship program.
          Section 741: This bill includes language that 
        supersedes Section 718 of Public Law 105-277, as 
        amended, and provides that on a permanent basis 
        beginning with fiscal year 2001, funds made available 
        through the annual appropriations process for the 
        market access program, or any program that replaces the 
        market access program, may be used to promote any 
        agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the 
        Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended, except for 
        products that have been specifically excluded from the 
        market access program by Section 1302, Title I of 
        Public Law 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
        Act of 1993.
          Section 742: Language is included prohibiting the use 
        of funds regarding certain floodplains in Arkansas.
          Section 743: Language is included that enhances the 
        ability of the Friends of the National Arboretum to 
        provide additional support for the National Arboretum.
          Section 744: Language is included that the Secretary 
        shall include the value of lost production when 
        compensating owners of trees destroyed as part of the 
        Citrus Canker Eradication program in Florida.
          Section 745: Language is included that instructs USDA 
        to reinstate fortification requirements and to disclose 
        to federal nutrition program participants meat and 
        poultry products containing greater than 30 percent 
        alternative protein products.
          Section 746: This section provides that ratites and 
        squab slaughtered for human consumption be subject to 
        the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
          Section 747: Language is included that provides for 
        compensation, out of available funds, to nursery stock 
        producers for losses caused by Hurricane Irene in 
        October 1999.
          Section 748: Language is included that any regulation 
        which establishes requirements for producers/packers to 
        conduct Salmonella Enteritidis tests shall defray or 
        reimburse such costs to producers/packers.
          Section 749: Language is included that allows the 
        USDA to make loans to poultry farmers who have incurred 
        losses due to disasters.
          Section 750: Language is included that extends the 
        time within which to compensate cotton producers in 
        Georgia out of available funds.
          Section 751: Language is included that provides 
        emergency funds for market/quality loss payments for 
        apples and potatoes.
          Section 752: Language is included prohibiting the use 
        of funds to reimburse crop insurance providers and 
        agents for administrative and operating costs that 
        exceed 20 percent of the premium.
    26. Title VIII--Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement.--Language is included providing for Trade 
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement.

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

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

AGRICULTURE MARKET TRANSITION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                     Subtitle D--Other Commodities

                            CHAPTER 1--DAIRY


SEC. 141. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Rate.--The price of milk shall be supported at the 
following rates per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 
percent butterfat:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) During each of calendar years 1999 [and 2000] 
        through 2001, $9.90.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Period of Effectiveness.--This section (other than 
subsection (g)) shall be effective only during the period 
beginning on the first day of the first month beginning after 
the date of enactment of this title and ending on December 31, 
[2000] 2001. The program authorized by this section shall 
terminate on December 31, [2000] 2001, and shall be considered 
to have expired notwithstanding section 257 of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
907).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 142. RECOURSE LOAN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROCESSORS OF DAIRY 
                    PRODUCTS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Effective Date.--This section shall be effective 
beginning January 1, [2001] 2002.

     SECTION 321 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

  Sec. 321. (a)  * * *
  (b) Hazard Insurance Requirement.--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Loans to poultry farmers.--
                  (A) Inability to obtain insurance.--
                          (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any 
                        other provision of this subtitle, the 
                        Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
                        farmer under this subtitle to cover the 
                        loss of a chicken house for which the 
                        farmer did not have hazard insurance at 
                        the time of the loss, if the farmer--
                                  (I) applied for, but was 
                                unable, to obtain hazard 
                                insurance for the chicken 
                                house;
                                  (II) uses the loan to rebuild 
                                the chicken house in accordance 
                                with industry standards in 
                                effect on the date the farmer 
                                submits an application for the 
                                loan (referred to in this 
                                paragraph as ``current industry 
                                standards'');
                                  (III) obtains, for the term 
                                of the loan, hazard insurance 
                                for the full market value of 
                                the chicken house; and
                                  (IV) meets the other 
                                requirements for the loan under 
                                this subtitle, other than (if 
                                the Secretary finds that the 
                                applicant's farming operations 
                                have been substantially 
                                affected by a major disaster or 
                                emergency designated by the 
                                President under the Robert T. 
                                Stafford Disaster Relief and 
                                Emergency Assistance Act (42 
                                U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the 
                                requirement that an applicant 
                                not be able to obtain 
                                sufficient credit elsewhere.
                          (ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan 
                        made to a poultry farmer under clause 
                        (i) shall be an amount that will allow 
                        the farmer to rebuild the chicken house 
                        in accordance with current industry 
                        standards.
                  (B) Loans to comply with current industry 
                standards.--
                          (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any 
                        other provision of this subtitle, the 
                        Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
                        farmer under this subtitle to cover the 
                        loss of a chicken house for which the 
                        farmer had hazard insurance at the time 
                        of the loss, if--
                                  (I) the amount of the hazard 
                                insurance is less than the cost 
                                of rebuilding the chicken house 
                                in accordance with current 
                                industry standards;
                                  (II) the farmer uses the loan 
                                to rebuild the chicken house in 
                                accordance with current 
                                industry standards;
                                  (III) the farmer obtains, for 
                                the term of the loan, hazard 
                                insurance for the full market 
                                value of the chicken house; and
                                  (IV) the farmer meets the 
                                other requirements for the loan 
                                under this subtitle, other than 
                                (if the Secretary finds that 
                                the applicant's farming 
                                operations have been 
                                substantially affected by a 
                                major disaster or emergency 
                                designated by the President 
                                under the Robert T. Stafford 
                                Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                                Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
                                et seq.)) the requirement that 
                                an applicant not be able to 
                                obtain sufficient credit 
                                elsewhere.
                          (ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan 
                        made to a poultry farmer under clause 
                        (i) shall be the difference between--
                                  (I) the amount of the hazard 
                                insurance obtained by the 
                                farmer; and
                                  (II) the cost of rebuilding 
                                the chicken house in accordance 
                                with current industry 
                                standards.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 1121 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 21, 1998

AN ACT Making omnibus consolidated and emergency appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

SEC. 1121. INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR COTTON PRODUCERS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Conditions on Payment to State.--The Secretary of 
Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia 
under subsection (a) only if the State also contributes 
$5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and agrees to expend all 
amounts in the indemnity fund by [not later than January 1, 
2000] not later than January 1, 2001, to provide compensation 
to cotton producers as provided in such subsection. If the 
State of Georgia fails to make its contribution of $5,000,000 
to the indemnity fund by July 1, 1999, the funds that would 
otherwise be paid to the State shall be available to the 
Secretary for the purpose of providing partial compensation to 
cotton producers as provided in such subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Additional Disbursement.--
          (1) Cotton stored in georgia.--The State of Georgia 
        shall use funds remaining in the indemnity fund 
        established in accordance with this section to 
        compensate cotton producers in other States who stored 
        cotton in the State of Georgia and incurred losses in 
        1998 or 1999 as a result of the events described in 
        subsection (a).
          (2) Ginners and others.--The State of Georgia may 
        also use funds remaining in the indemnity fund 
        established in accordance with this section to 
        compensate cotton ginners and others in the business of 
        producing, ginning, warehousing, buying, or selling 
        cotton for losses they incurred in 1998 or 1999 as the 
        result of the events described in subsection (a), if--
                  (A) as of March 1, 2000, the indemnity fund 
                has not been exhausted;
                  (B) the State of Georgia provides cotton 
                producers (including cotton producers described 
                in paragraph (1)) an additional time period 
                prior to May 1, 2000, in which to establish 
                eligibility for compensation under this 
                section;
                  (C) the State of Georgia determines during 
                calendar year 2000 that all cotton producers in 
                that State and cotton producers in other States 
                as described in paragraph (1) have been 
                appropriately compensated for losses incurred 
                in 1998 or 1999 as described in subsection (a); 
                and
                  (D) such additional compensation is not made 
                available until May 1, 2000.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:
          State Mediation Grants
          Dairy Indemnity Program
          Elderly Feeding Program
          Emerson-Leland Hunger Fellowships

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following information is 
submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the 
accompanying bill:
    The bill proposes rescission of $3,911,000 of funds derived 
from interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 
2001 under the Rural Economic Development Loans Program 
Account, which is an annual technical adjustment contained in 
the budget estimates.
    The bill proposes rescission of $27,000,000 appropriated 
for ``Food and Drug Administration Salaries and Expenses'' for 
fiscal year 2000 in Public Law 106-78. These funds are no 
longer required due to the March 21, 2000 Supreme Court 
decision that FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco 
products.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     302(b) allocation           This bill
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                       Full committee data                          Budget                  Budget
                                                                   authority    Outlays    authority    Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary...............................................     $14,376     $14,861     $14,491     $14,867
    Mandatory...................................................      48,128      31,061      60,884      31,061
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      62,504      45,922      75,375      45,928
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess 
of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation. However, 
pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, as amended, increases to the Committee's section 302(a) 
allocation are authorized for funding designated as emergency 
requirements. After the bill is reported to the House, the 
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will provide an 
increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding 
provided in the bill. That new allocation will eliminate the 
technical difference prior to floor consideration.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

             [Five year projections, in millions of dollars]
Budget Authority......................................            75,375
Outlays:
    2001..............................................            39,628
    2002..............................................             4,786
    2003..............................................               548
    2004..............................................               320
    2005 and beyond...................................               507


    The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and 
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, 
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan 
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available 
under existing law for fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

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


                        [In millions of dollars]
New budget authority..................................            18,810
Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom..........            15,461


                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2001, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), the following information provides the definition of 
the term ``program, project, and activity'' for departments and 
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall 
include the most specific level of budget items identified in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2001, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the 
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall 
applyany percentage reduction for fiscal year 2001 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in the 
explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2001 budget estimates, 
as amended, for such departments and agencies, as modified by 
congressional action, and in addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual state, district, and county offices.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of motion: To provide an additional $13.7 
million in emergency appropriations for investigation and 
follow-up legal actions related to market concentrations and 
anti-competitive behavior in agriculture.
    Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 28 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur                          Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price                           Mr. Packard
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Peterson
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Porter
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Delay.
    Description of motion: To strike title VIII of the bill 
that would implement a process to lift agricultural or medical 
sanctions against any foreign country unless the President 
justifies any proposed sanction and the imposition of any 
proposed sanction is approved in law. Title VIII also includes 
exceptions for imposing sanctions.
    Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 35 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bonilla                         Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Boyd
Mr. DeLay                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Cramer
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Ms. DeLauro
Ms. Granger                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hobson                          Mr. Dicks
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Dixon
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Edwards
Mr. Lewis                           Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Farr
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Goode
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Istook
Mrs. Northup                        Mr. Jackson
Mr. Packard                         Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Porter                          Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. Regula                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Skeen                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Taylor                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Wicker                          Mr. Obey
Mr. Wolf                            Mr. Olver
Mr. Young                           Mr. Pastor
                                    Ms. Pelosi
                                    Mr. Peterson
                                    Mr. Price
                                    Ms. Roybal-Allard
                                    Mr. Sabo
                                    Mr. Serrano
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Visclosky
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp

                             rollcall no. 3

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To provide $53,100,000 of emergency 
appropriations to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and 
plant and animal diseases.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 28 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer                           Ms. Granger
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Pastor                          Mrs. Northup
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Packard
Mr. Price                           Mr. Porter
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Skeen
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 4

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of motion: To provide $115,000,000 in emergency 
appropriations for apple market loss assistance and for quality 
loss payments for apples and potatoes.
    Results: Adopted 26 yeas to 22 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dickey                          Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Hobson
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Latham
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Miller
Mrs. Lowey                          Mrs. Northup
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Packard
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Rogers
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Skeen
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Sununu
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Peterson                        Mr. Wamp
Mr. Price                           Mr. Wicker
Mr. Regula                          Mr. Wolf
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Young
Mr. Sabo
Mr. Serrano
Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Walsh

                             rollcall no. 5

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Edwards.
    Description of motion: To provide $284 million in emergency 
appropriations for crop loss assistance authorized by section 
801 of Public Law 106-78.
    Results: Rejected 18 yeas to 27 nays.
        Members Voting Yes            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey                         Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Jackson                         Ms. Granger
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Miller
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Peterson
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 6

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To provide $80 million in emergency 
appropriations for equity capital and grants to establish 
farmer-owned cooperatives for the processing and marketing of 
agricultural commodities (including livestock).
    Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 26 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Emerson
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Latham
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Miller
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Packard
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Porter
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rogers
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 7

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of motion: to increase appropriations for 
Community facility grants by $10,000,000, Rural business 
enterprise grants by $10,000,000, Rural business opportunity 
grants by $2,000,000, Water and waste disposal grants by 
$34,000, and Solid waste management grants by $1,000,000, and 
reduce the commission on crop insurance policies from 24.5 
percent of the premium to 20.0 percent.
    Results: Adopted 25 yeas to 23 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Frelinghuysen
Ms. DeLauro                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Istook
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Latham
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Lewis
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Nethercutt
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Packard
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Porter
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Rogers
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Skeen
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Sununu
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Taylor
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Wamp
Mr. Price                           Mr. Wicker
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Wolf
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Young
Mr. Serrano
Mr. Visclosky

                          FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 8

    Date: May 10, 2000.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2001.
    Motion by: Ms. DeLauro.
    Description of motion: To provide $14,400,000 in emergency 
appropriations for services authorized by the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the 
Egg Products Inspection Act.
    Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 24 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon                           Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Kingston
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Latham
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Porter
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Rogers
Mr. Price                           Mr. Skeen
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Sununu
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY AND HON. MARCY KAPTUR

    Regrettably, this bill falls short of meeting basic needs 
in the programs it covers. In addition, it contains some very 
harmful legislative riders--most notably involving restrictions 
on discussions and research in the area of global climate 
change and on programs to ensure that the eggs we eat are free 
from harmful bacteria. During committee consideration, 
Democrats offered several amendments to try to make up some of 
the most important shortfalls. Unfortunately, most of these 
amendments were defeated.
    The bill also does very little to address the crises of low 
prices, low incomes, and economic decline that is plaguing much 
of rural America. Because these problems tend to involve 
fundamental issues of federal farm policy, in many ways the 
Agriculture Committee is a better forum than the Appropriations 
Committee for debating the causes and fashioning basic 
solutions. There are indications that the Agriculture Committee 
may be prepared to consider a farm assistance package this 
year--something which it did not do in 1998 or 1999. We would 
welcome that development and look forward to the ensuing 
debate. However, to the extent that the task of fashioning 
emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers once again falls 
to the Appropriations Committee, we will do our utmost to try 
to ensure that the assistance is distributed fairly and broadly 
and goes to where it is most needed.
    While emergency aid may seem to have dominated the work of 
the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee in the past two 
years, we must not lose sight of the important and wide-ranging 
programs covered by the regular appropriations in this bill. In 
addition to activities that directly help farmers and ranchers, 
the bill also funds most federal food safety efforts, 
regulation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical 
devices by the FDA, nutrition programs for children and the 
elderly, housing, water and sewer and economic development 
programs available throughout rural and small town America 
(both on and off farms), and conservation programs of vital 
importance to protecting water quality and preventing erosion 
and other environmental damage.
    In short, this bill is important not just to people who 
live and work on farms, but to everyone who has an interest in 
safe food, clean water, protection from dangerous and 
ineffective drugs, meeting the nutritional needs of vulnerable 
low-income children and senior citizens, and preventing the 
spread of agricultural pests and diseases that can threaten 
urban trees and gardens as well as farmers' crops.
    As we will describe below, the FY 2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill reported by the committee falls short of 
meeting many of these needs. In saying so, we mean no criticism 
of Chairman Skeen and the others involved in developing this 
bill. They did the best they could with the hand that was dealt 
them. Rather, the fundamental problem is that the congressional 
budget resolution--which reflects and implements the budgetary 
policies and priorities of the majority party in Congress--has 
allowed insufficient resources for this bill and for the other 
appropriations measures that meet major domestic needs.
    Overall, the budget allocation that the Agriculture 
subcommittee was given allows an increase of $431 million in 
non-emergency discretionary appropriations over the previous 
year's level. In percentage terms, that's growth of about 3 
percent--barely enough to keep up with inflation, and well 
below the growth rate of the economy. In fact, if ones takes 
into account that some of the basic on-going programs covered 
by the bill were funded in part by emergency appropriations 
last year, the year-to-year increase is probably closer to $200 
million or about 1.5 percent. And compared to the President's 
budget request for fiscal year 2001, the bill is short by $1.1 
billion.
    Following are some of the practical consequences of these 
shortfalls.
Food safety
    For the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS)--which is responsible for inspecting and 
ensuring the safety of all domestic and imported meat and 
poultry products--the bill falls short of the President's 
budget request by more than $14 million. Pay costs make upabout 
three quarters of this agency's budget, and the increase provided by 
the bill is not enough to cover the higher pay and benefit costs 
resulting from the pay raises received by all federal employees. To 
cover the costs of basic inspections of processing plants, the bill 
would require the FSIS to reduce assistance for state-run meat and 
poultry inspection systems, or cut back on inspections of imports or on 
laboratory operations, or take other problematic steps. And the 
improvements and initiatives that the Administration had proposed--such 
as risk assessment studies, upgrades to egg safety, and expanded 
collaboration with state and local food safety programs--will be almost 
impossible to achieve under this appropriation.
    To its credit, the bill does fully fund the budget request 
for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) operating account--
other than the request for tobacco-related programs. These 
appropriations for regulation on food and drug safety are badly 
needed, and we hope they can be preserved in conference.
    On the other hand, the bill falls short in other food 
safety areas within the Agriculture Department, in addition to 
the inadequate appropriation for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service just discussed. For example, it fails to provide for an 
important initiative within the Agricultural Marketing Service 
to begin a systematic program of testing fruits and vegetables 
to assess levels and patterns of microbiological contamination, 
as well as failing to provide requested funds for food safety 
research.
    During the Committee markup, Representative DeLauro offered 
an amendment to bring funding for FSIS up to the 
Administration's request (using emergency appropriations). That 
amendment was defeated by a vote of 20 to 24 (roll call number 
8).

Farmers and consumers both squeezed by the middleman

    Many believe that a major cause of family farmers' current 
difficulties is the increasing squeeze they face as the markets 
that they sell their products into and buy their seed and other 
inputs from become more and more dominated by a handful of 
large corporations. Many formerly independent producers are 
simply becoming contractors for agri-business corporations, 
which can essentially dictate the terms on which these farmers 
and ranchers operate and the prices they will pay and receive. 
The Clinton Administration once again requested some modest 
funding increases to provide the Agriculture Department with 
some additional staff and a bit more resources to analyze and 
investigate the growing concentration of economic power in 
agricultural markets and to take action against abusive 
practices that violate existing law. This bill denies most of 
these requested increases, providing only $1.4 million of the 
$7.1 million increase requested for the Grain Inspection, 
Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and no increase 
at all for the Department's Office of General Counsel.

Funding to investigate and respond to market concentration

    When the bill was considered by the Appropriations 
Committee, Representative Obey offered an amendment to provide 
an additional $13.7 million (on an emergency basis), to help 
the federal government respond to market concentration and 
abusive practices in agriculture. That amendment was defeated 
by a vote of 21 to 28 (roll call number 1).
    Addressing the problems of concentration in agriculture 
will also require substantive legislation to strengthen the 
enforcement powers of the federal government. However, more 
funds and more staff to better enforce existing law would have 
been a useful first step, and we regret that the committee 
refused to take that step.

Assistant to producer cooperatives

    Another useful step that could be taken to help small and 
medium-sized producers reposition in today's marketplace would 
be to make some funding available to enhance and expand 
producer-owned cooperatives. These co-ops can provide 
alternative processing and marketing facilities, to help add 
value to crops and provide markets not under the control of 
giant agri-business corporations. In our view, it is more 
prudent to provide relatively modest funding now to enable 
producers to derive income from the marketplace than to once 
again later in the year provide billions in ill-targeted 
emergency economic assistance.
    During the committee markup of this bill, Representative 
Kaptur offered an amendment to provide $80 million in emergency 
funds to be used for equity capital and grants to establish and 
upgrade farmer-owned cooperatives and other cooperatives that 
would help create market-oriented opportunities in rural 
America. The amendment was similar to a proposal made by the 
Clinton Administration, as part of its farm safety net 
initiative. The Kaptur amendment was defeated, however, by a 
vote of 19 to 26 (roll call number 6).

Animal and plant pests and diseases

    Various parts of the country are facing serious outbreaks 
of agricultural pests and diseases. Many of these problems 
recently arrived from outside the U.S. Citrus canker is 
devastating fruit trees in parts of Flroida--including trees in 
urban yards as well as in commercial groves. The Asian 
Longhorned beetle--which evidently entered the country in wood 
packing material from China--is killing hardwood trees in New 
York and Illinois, and threatens to spread further. Plum pox--
which destroys peaches, plums, and other stone fruits--has 
turned up in Pennsylvania (apparently the first appearance in 
the United States of this disease which is normally found in 
Europe and the Middle East). Bovine tuberculosis is threatening 
to spread in Michigan. Pierece's disease is becoming an 
increasing serious problem for the California grape industry. 
And the list could go on.
    To help detect and eradicate these and other pests, the 
Administration requested a substantial increase for the 
Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS). This bill, however, underfunds that request by 
$42 million. In fact, since the committee provided increases 
above the President's request for certain line items within 
APHIS (such as boll weevil control and wildlife services), the 
measures falls short of the amounts requested to deal with 
emerging pest and disease problems by about $53 million.
    Rep. Kaptur offered an amendment during committee markup to 
provide $53 million in emergency appropriations to bring the 
bill up to the Administration's request for effectively dealing 
with these problems. That amendment was defeated 22 to 28 (roll 
call number 3).

Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service) 
provides advice and technical assistance to farmers and 
ranchers in designing and implementing conservation measures on 
their land. In some cases, this assistance is needed to help 
comply with requirements of federal farm programs; in other 
cases, farmers and ranchers are simply seeking help in 
preventing soil erosion and otherwise preserving and enhancing 
their land. This is an extremely popular program in farm 
country, and the Agriculture Subcommittee received letters from 
many Members and constituents urging a substantial increase in 
funding.
    The President's budget proposed an $86 million increase for 
NRCS conservation operations, including $28 million more for 
basic ``on the ground'' technical assistance, $20 million for 
assistance to animal feeding operations in devising and 
implementing waste management plans, and $13 million for other 
purposes under the President's Clean Water Actin Plan, as well 
as funding for several other initiatives.
    The bill, however, provides only $16 million of the $86 
million requested increase. Most of that amount is allocated to 
partially fund the proposed increase for animal feeding 
operations, and to various specific projects designated in the 
committee report. According to NRCS, the bill's funding level 
would require its conservation staff to be reduced by 261 
positions below the FY 2000 level. Given the importance of NRCS 
services--not just to farmers and ranchers but also to 
attaining clean water and other environmental protection 
goals--the bill is taking a large step in the wrong direction.

Rural development

    The bill, as reported by subcommittee, did provide 
increases (totaling about $163 million above FY 2000) for rural 
development programs, and Chairman Skeen is to be commended for 
finding the funds to make thatpossible. However, most of the 
increases are needed just to offset higher credit subsidy costs 
resulting from higher interest rates, and therefore do little more than 
keep levels of loans and loan guarantees from declining.
    An amendment offered by Representative Maurice Hinchey 
during the full committee markup (roll call number 7) added 
another $57 million for rural water and waste grants, community 
facilities grants, and rural business enterprise and rural 
business opportunity grants--all programs that fill vital 
needs. (These increases were financed by reducing the 
commissions paid by the federal government to agents who sell 
crop insurance.)
    Even after the Hinchey amendment, however, the bill remains 
about $180 million below the President's request for rural 
development. Some of the largest shortfalls come in rural 
housing programs, as well as rural development loans (the 
``intermediary relending'' program) and assistance for 
development of cooperatives. Given the needs that exist in 
rural America, it is unfortunate that the Majority's budget 
program does not allow more funding for rural housing and 
economic development.

Other funding issues

    There are several other funding issues and problems in this 
bill. For example, it provides $37 million less than requested 
by the Administration for overseas food assistance under title 
II of the PL 480 ``Food for Peace'' program. Not only does this 
program help meet real human needs in areas suffering from food 
shortages and disasters, but it also helps farmers by removing 
surplus commodities from U.S. markets and thereby relieving 
downward pressures on prices. At a time of disastrously low 
prices for many commodities, we should be doing more--not 
less--to help reduce domestic surpluses by putting them to use 
in meeting urgent humanitarian needs overseas.
    The measure also underfunds a number of accounts that pay 
the salaries of USDA employees. It is understandable that, in a 
time of tight budgets, Congress tends to put money into 
priorities other than basic ``salaries and expenses'' 
appropriations. However, such a policy also leads to serious 
problems. Among other things, federal employees receive cost-
of-living pay raises each year, and unless increases are 
provided to cover the cost of those raises and associated 
benefit costs, it becomes necessary to reduce staffing levels. 
While some staff reductions can be offset by increased 
efficiency, it will be very hard to prevent cost that have been 
occurring at USDA from having a harmful impact on delivery of 
services and oversight and management of programs and 
resources.

Language regarding Kyoto Protocol

    During subcommittee markup of this bill, an amendment was 
adopted adding language to the bill that seeks to restrict use 
of funds for mechanisms related to addressing the threat of 
global climate change. This amendment was adopted on a straight 
party-line vote, with all Republican Members voting ``Yes'', 
and all Democrats voting ``No''.
    The provisions thereby added to this bill go well beyond 
compromise language included in previous years' appropriations 
bills, which prohibited use of funding ``to propose or issue 
rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of 
implementation, or in preparation for implementation of the 
Kyoto Protocol''. Rather, the new language seems to prohibit 
any spending to discuss, research, or work on developing 
approaches such as carbon emissions trading systems or the 
Clean Development Mechanism that could be used to implement any 
system for reduction of greenhouse gases and global warming 
that might be agreed on in the future.
    The new restrictions are ironic, considering that 
objections to the Kyoto Protocol as it now exists tend to focus 
on inadequate participation by the developing world and 
potentially high costs to the U.S. economy. Little progress can 
be made toward solving those problems and improving the Kyoto 
Protocol if the executive branch is forbidden to work on or 
discuss mechanisms that could help reduce costs and increase 
participation by developing nations. Including such 
restrictions in an agriculture appropriations bill seems 
especially unfortunate, since there appears to be an important 
and positive role that could be played by farmers and farmland 
in addressing global warming problems.
    We can imagine no useful purpose for including this new 
restrictive language in the agriculture appropriations bill, 
and will work to ensure thatany measure enacted into law 
contains no restrictive language that goes beyond what was agreed to 
last year.

Egg safety

    A second unfortunate provision added to the bill in 
subcommittee is legislative language restricting the actions 
that can be taken by the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Agriculture Department to reduce bacterial contamination and 
improve the safety of eggs. Among other things, this language 
requires the government to pay producers and packers of eggs 
for the costs of any tests they might be required to conduct to 
detect the presence of Salmonella bacteria. The government does 
not reimburse other industries or food producers for tests 
required to ensure that their products are safe for consumers, 
but rather treats food safety costs as part of the basic costs 
of production. It is not clear why eggs should be treated 
differently. In addition, the bill language seeks to limit the 
number of tests that can be required and the circumstances 
under which the government can require eggs to be pasteurized 
because of suspected bacterial contamination.
    In essence, this language makes various scientific and 
policy judgments about egg safety. These are judgments which 
the Appropriations Committee does not have the background or 
expertise to make--certainly not based on just a few minutes of 
debate during markup and without the benefit of hearings on the 
subject. While the amendment may have been intended to reduce 
the possibility that unnecessary costs could be imposed on the 
egg industry by new food safety rules, this kind of legislative 
rider on an appropriations bill is absolutely the wrong way to 
go about achieving that goal. Instead, the federal agencies 
involved should be allowed to continue their public rulemaking 
process, with appropriate oversight by the congressional 
committees having expertise and jurisdiction over the issues.

Effort to supplement funding for 1999 disaster loss assistance

    Finally, we regret the committee's defeat of an amendment 
offered by Representative Chet Edwards during consideration of 
this bill. The amendment would have added $284 million to 
emergency appropriations made last Fall to assist farmers who 
suffered losses due to droughts, floods and other natural 
disasters during the 1999 crop year.
    Losses eligible for this assistance have turned out to be 
larger than anticipated, and the amounts appropriated last year 
have proved insufficient to compensate farmers under the basic 
formula for this program. Because appropriations were less than 
the amounts needed under the formula for 1999, payments had to 
be pro-rated, with farmers receiving only 69.6 percent of the 
amounts for which they would otherwise be eligible. A similar, 
but less severe situation arose in the disaster assistance 
program for the 1998 crop year, in which farmers received only 
84.9 percent of the amounts for which they were eligible.
    The Edwards amendment would have added funds to the 1999 
disaster loss program, in order to bring payments up to 1998 
levels. In other words, farmers who lost crops due to natural 
disasters in 1999 would have received a supplemental payment, 
so that they would receive the same percentage compensation as 
farmers who lost crops in 1998. It seems only fair to treat 
both groups alike, and the extra assistance could have been put 
to good use by farmers who suffered severe losses in the 
droughts, storms and floods of 1999. Unfortunately, however, 
the Edwards amendment was defeated by a vote of 18 to 27 (roll 
call number 5).
    The following table, based on Agriculture Department data, 
shows payments under the existing 1999 crop loss program made 
to farmers in each state as of May 11, 2000, along with an 
estimate of the additional amounts that farmers in the state 
would have received under the Edwards amendment.

   ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF EDWARDS AMENDMENT ON DISASTER LOSS ASSISTANCE
                      PAYMENTS TO FARMERS BY STATE
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Est.
                                                 Payments     additional
                                                 received      payments
                    State                         under         under
                                                 existing      Edwards
                                              appropriation     amdt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................         $19.9          $4.4
Alaska......................................             *             *
Arizona.....................................           3.4           0.7
Arkansas....................................          23.0           5.1
California..................................          59.7          13.1
Colorado....................................          13.3           2.9
Connecticut.................................           4.1           0.9
Delaware....................................           1.5           0.3
Florida.....................................          10.8           2.4
Georgia.....................................          73.2          16.1
Hawaii......................................             *             *
Idaho.......................................           9.4           2.1
Illinois....................................          12.6           2.8
Indiana.....................................          15.5           3.4
Iowa........................................          15.3           3.4
Kansas......................................          31.6           7.0
Kentucky....................................          41.1           9.0
Louisiana...................................          13.5           3.0
Maine.......................................           1.9           0.4
Maryland....................................           7.7           1.7
Massachusetts...............................           4.7           1.0
Michigan....................................           7.5           1.6
Minnesota...................................          47.8          10.5
Mississippi.................................          20.7           4.5
Missouri....................................          39.6           8.7
Montana.....................................          31.2           6l9
Nebraska....................................          20.3           4.5
Nevada......................................           0.1             *
New Hampshire...............................           0.7           0.2
New Jersey..................................          10.6           2.3
New Mexico..................................           4.2           0.9
New York....................................          13.4           2.9
North Carolina..............................          61.9          13.6
North Dakota................................         141.8          31.2
Ohio........................................          23.0           5.0
Oklahoma....................................          31.7           7.0
Oregon......................................          14.1           3.1
Pennsylvania................................          30.0           6.6
Puerto Rico.................................          11.8           2.6
Rhode Island................................           0.8           0.2
South Carolina..............................          26.3           5.8
South Dakota................................          40.4           8.9
Tennessee...................................          29.1           6.4
Texas.......................................         188.6          41.5
Utah........................................           1.5           0.3
Vermont.....................................           2.3           0.5
Virginia....................................          15.1           3.3
Washington..................................          19.8           4.3
West Virginia...............................           3.4           0.8
Wisconsin...................................           6.9           1.5
Wyoming.....................................           1.2           0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates amounts less than $100,000.

 Note.--This table is based on Agriculture Department data showing crop
  loss payments distributed as of May 11, 2000. Some funds remained to
  be distributed, and thus final figures for the program (and for the
  Edwards amendment) will be higher in some states than the estimates
  shown in the table.

                                  
