[Senate Report 106-80]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 157
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     106-80

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



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

                 June 17, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1233]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1233) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2000

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $60,710,118,000
Amount of 1999 appropriations acts to date............\1\ 54,510,359,000
Amount of estimates, 2000.............................\2\ 66,883,182,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Over the appropriations provided in 1999............  +6,199,759,000
    Under the estimates for 2000........................  -6,173,064,000

\1\ Includes $1,250,000,000 rescission and excludes emergency 
appropriations.
\2\ Includes fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations totaling 
$5,000,000,000.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          Summary of the Bill

                                                                   Page
Overview and summary of the bill.................................    6-
Government Performance and Results Act...........................     7

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

Office of the Secretary..........................................     9
Executive operations.............................................    11
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    12
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................    13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    13
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.........    14
Hazardous waste management.......................................    15
Departmental administration......................................    15
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    17
Office of Communications.........................................    17
Office of the Inspector General..................................    18
Office of the General Counsel....................................    18
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
  Economics......................................................    19
Economic Research Service........................................    19
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    20
Agricultural Research Service....................................    21
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....    37
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
  Programs.......................................................    47
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......................    48
Agricultural Marketing Service...................................    55
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    59
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    60
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    60
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
  Services.......................................................    61
Farm Service Agency..............................................    62
Risk Management Agency...........................................    68

                              Corporations

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

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
  Environment....................................................    75

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
  Development....................................................    83
Rural Community Advancement Program..............................    84
Rural Housing Service............................................    88
Rural Business-Cooperative Service...............................    94
Rural Utilities Service..........................................    98

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

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

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Food and Drug Administration.....................................   123

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service.....................................   129

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   130
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   131

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2000 Committee
                                         1999 \1\        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....    $14,481,998,000    $20,000,476,000
Title II: Conservation programs...        793,072,000        808,072,000
Title III: Rural economic and           2,175,234,000      2,184,449,000
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     34,817,199,000     35,546,075,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and         1,196,718,000      1,062,908,000
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........      1,046,138,000      1,104,888,000
Title VII: General provisions.....  .................          3,250,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                54,510,359,000     60,710,118,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $6,639,751,000 and $22,466,000
  rescission of emergency funds (Public Laws 105-277 and 106-31).
  Includes $1,250,000,000 Food Stamp Program rescission (Public Law 106-
  31).

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

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

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
 Development, and Related Agencies:
    General purpose discretionary...........................       13,983       13,983       14,254   \1\ 14,254
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................       50,295       47,063       33,088       32,467
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 40,763
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,159
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          595
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          343
    2004 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          492
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000           NA       18,341           NA       15,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

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

                              Food Safety

    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$320,633,000, an increase of $45,886,000 from the fiscal year 
1999 level for United States Department of Agriculture and Food 
and Drug Administration activities included in the President's 
Food Safety Initiative. The Food Safety Initiative includes 
those activities identified in the May 1997 report to the 
President entitled: ``Food Safety from Farm-to-Table: A 
National Food Safety Initiative.'' It does not include other 
federal food safety programs and activities, federal meat and 
poultry inspection being a notable example. The increases 
recommended by the Committee for the President's Food Safety 
Initiative, by agency, are as follows:
  --$10,000,000 for the Agricultural Research Service;
  --$2,635,000 for the Cooperative State Research, Education, 
        and Extension Service;
  --$453,000 for the Economic Research Service;
  --$2,500,000 for the National Agricultural Statistics 
        Service;
  --$2,398,000 for the Agricultural Marketing Service;
  --$2,900,000 for the Food Safety and Inspection Service; and
  --$25,000,000 for the Food and Drug Administration.
    The United States continues to have one of the safest food 
supplies in the world. These additional measures are intended 
to increase the protection of the American public through the 
implementation of science-based food inspection systems and 
other technologies to control and detect food safety hazards, 
additional research, education on food safety procedures and 
safe food handling, enhanced public health surveillance, and a 
faster, more efficient response to incidences of foodborne 
illness.
    At the same time, however, the Committee believes that it 
is equally important for the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to reassure 
the public about the safety of our food supply and to educate 
the American public on the safety, effectiveness, and consumer 
benefits of practices and processes used in food production. 
The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to develop a 
plan of action to achieve this goal and to submit this plan, 
identifying those activities underway or proposed to be 
undertaken, to the Committee by December 1, 1999.
Food recalls
    The Committee believes that agencies with jurisdiction over 
meat, poultry and food products should, to the extent 
practicable, have consistent recall protocols. Both the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) have established recall coordinators 
to implement the agencies' respective protocol. The Committee 
expects the FDA and the FSIS each to provide to the Committee a 
report detailing the operations of its recall coordinator. The 
report should include descriptions of the coordinator's 
authorities, operating procedures, and budget and descriptions 
of actions taken during recent recalls handled by each. The 
Committee expects this report to be provided to the Committee 
by January 30, 2000.
Food irradiation
    The Committee supports the use of new technology and 
innovative methods to improve the safety of the nation's food 
supply. Among these new tools is the use of irradiation in both 
meat and poultry and processed foods. The Committee is 
concerned that the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the 
Food and Drug Administration have not completed their December 
1995 proposals for harmonizing and improving the efficiency of 
procedures used by the agencies for reviewing and approving the 
use of substances, including irradiation, in meat and poultry 
products. In addition, the Committee urges the Secretary of 
Agriculture to finalize and fully implement its proposed rule 
to allow the use of irradiation on meat.
Antibiotic resistance in livestock
    A General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress in 
April 1999 reflects the difference of opinion between the 
United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of 
Health and Human Services about the potential risks associated 
with the use of human antibiotics in animals and to what extent 
on-farm antibiotic use contributes to resistance in humans. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to implement the GAO report's recommendation and 
develop a strategy, including a proposed timetable and budget 
to conduct an assessment of the risk to human health from 
antimicrobial resistance in foodborne pathogens resulting from 
on-farm antibiotic use. The Secretary should consult with all 
stakeholders in designing the assessment and should also detail 
how the result of the risk assessment will be incorporated into 
regulations governing the approval of on-farm antibiotics. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs the USDA to submit a report 
on the status of its research on the effectiveness of the use 
of growth promoting antibiotics in animals that may compromise 
human therapies and on alternatives to this practice.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

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

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 1999....................................  \1\ $2,836,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       2,942,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,836,000

\1\ Excludes $250,000 emergency appropriation provided by Public Law 
105-277 to support mandatory price reporting pilot investigation.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $2,836,000. This amount is $106,000 less 
than the budget request and the same as the 1999 appropriation.
    ``InfoShare'' funds.--In the Fiscal Year 1996 Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 104-37), $7,500,000 of 
the amount requested by the President was made available for 
``InfoShare'', the Department's project to integrate 
information systems and business processes to improve service 
delivery to customers of farm service and rural development 
agencies. These funds were made available until expended. The 
Committee notes that only a portion of these funds have been 
obligated, and an estimated $4,300,000 of these funds will 
remain unobligated at the end of fiscal year 1999. Due to 
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the 
requested program funding increases to meet the Department's 
USDA Service Center modernization and other information 
technology requirements. The Committee suggests that during 
fiscal year 2000, to the extent feasible, the Secretary use 
unobligated ``InfoShare'' balances to fund the highest priority 
information technology needs of the Department, with the prior 
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Markets for U.S. Agriculture.--The Committee believes that 
a strong agricultural economy is dependent on open and fairly 
structured markets both at home and abroad. While downturns in 
foreign economies, and the effect of those downturns on U.S. 
commodity prices, are outside the scope of USDA policy or 
involvement, there remain many elements in the arena of foreign 
trade which are inherently unfair to U.S. producers and 
exporters and the Committee strongly urges the Secretary, in 
conjunction with other parts of government, to act on behalf 
and in the best interest of U.S. agriculture in opening and 
maintaining fair marketplaces abroad for U.S. commodities. 
Similarly, the Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize 
existing authorities to examine domestic markets to ensure 
price transparency and to avoid undue concentration of market 
power in any segment of the U.S. agriculture industry.
    Conservation partnerships.--The Committee encourages the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency and 
other related agencies to work with the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation to develop partnerships to restore and 
enhance natural resources on land used for agricultural 
purposes as provided in the conservation title of the Federal 
Agriculture and Improvement Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR).
    Environmentally preferable products.--The Secretary shall 
work with the General Services Administration, the Department 
of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other 
appropriate agencies to maximize the purchases of 
environmentally preferable products, as defined by Executive 
Order 13101 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste 
Prevention. Such products are not only useful in improving the 
environment, but they can, when the product contains a 
substantial amount of agri-based content, also open 
considerable markets for farmers.
    The Department should actively participate in joint task 
forces and other multiagency entities in this area. It should 
actively work to properly define standards for agri-based 
content of products and work towards the development of such 
environmentally preferable products.
    Codex Alimentarius.--The Committee supports the activities 
of the U.S. office to implement Codex Alimentarius (Codex). The 
Food Safety and Inspection Service has had primary 
responsibility for the Codex activities of the Department, but 
other USDA agencies have shared in Codex activities and costs. 
The Committee urges the Secretary to provide at least 
$3,200,000 for Codex activities for fiscal year 2000. Further, 
the Committee expects the Department to submit a budget request 
for Codex activities for fiscal year 2001.
    Commissions.--Within the limitation on funding to cover 
necessary expenses of activities related to advisory 
committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
Department of Agriculture, the Committee expects funding for 
the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture and the 
National Drought Policy Commission each to be maintained at the 
fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee encourages the National 
Drought Policy Commission, created in July, 1998, to expedite 
its work to develop recommendations for a coordinated 
preparedness and response to drought emergencies.
    Migrant housing.--The Committee is concerned about the 
availability of migrant farm worker housing, particularly in 
areas with short harvest seasons. The Committee requests that 
the Department, along with input from growers, migrant farm 
worker groups, and nonprofit housing organizations, examine 
alternative construction technologies to address the lack of 
proper farm worker housing. The Committee directs the 
Department to report these findings to the Committee by 
February 1, 2000.
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--The Committee 
encourages the agency to allocate Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP) funds to all eligible livestock 
producers on an equitable basis.

                          Executive Operations

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

                            Chief Economist

Appropriations, 1999....................................  \1\ $5,620,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,622,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,411,000

\1\ Does not reflect $791,000 for the transfer of the Office of Energy 
from the Economic Research Service.

    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 
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all 
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used 
to develop outlook and situation material within the 
Department.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
recommends $6,411,000. This amount is $211,000 less than the 
budget request and $791,000 more than the 1999 appropriation. 
Included in the Committee's recommendation is $791,000 
associated with the transfer in fiscal year 1999 of the Office 
of Energy Policy and New Uses functions to this account from 
the Economic Research Service pursuant to the Secretary's 
reorganization authority.

                       National Appeals Division

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $11,718,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      12,699,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,718,000

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews of 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends 
$11,718,000. This amount is $981,000 less than the budget 
request and the same as the 1999 appropriation.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $6,120,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,583,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,583,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee recommends $6,583,000. This amount is $463,000 more 
than the 1999 appropriation and the same as the budget request.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................      $5,551,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       7,998,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,551,000

\1\ Excludes total emergency funding of $46,168,420 transferred from the 
Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses Account for Year 
2000 (Y2K) compliance pursuant to Public Law 105-277.

    The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 required the establishment of 
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. The 
Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 
August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, to 
provide policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and 
direction to the Department's information management and 
information technology investment activities in support of USDA 
program delivery. The Office provides long-range planning 
guidance, implements measures to ensure that technology 
investments are economical and effective, coordinates 
interagency information resources management projects, and 
implements standards to promote information exchange and 
technical interoperability. In addition, the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities 
financed under the Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 
2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated 
data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies through the 
National Information Technology Center with locations in Fort 
Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational 
services are also provided to the Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer, and executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $5,551,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $2,447,000 less than 
the budget request and the same as the 1999 appropriation. Due 
to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide 
any of the increases in funding requested for this Office.
    The President's budget for the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer requests program funding increases totaling 
$2,250,000 for various activities related to information 
technology. Under the ``Office of the Secretary'' account, the 
Committee suggests that unobligated funds made available to the 
Office of the Secretary in fiscal year 1996 for ``InfoShare'' 
be used, to the extent feasible, to meet high priority USDA 
Service Center and other information technology requirements. 
Requested program increases for the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer may be determined by the Secretary to 
qualify for the use of these funds.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $4,283,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,288,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,283,000

    Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief 
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction 
and oversight of the Department's financial management 
operations and systems. The Office is also responsible for the 
management and operation of the National Finance Center. In 
addition, the Office provides budget, accounting, and fiscal 
services to the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff 
offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of 
Communications, and executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee recommends $5,283,000. This amount is $1,005,000 less 
than the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the 1999 
appropriation.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 of the $2,005,000 
increase requested to restore USDA financial credibility and 
accountability. The Committee also includes language in the 
bill directing the Chief Financial Officer to actively market 
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $613,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         636,000
Committee recommendation................................         613,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 
and personal property management, personnel management, equal 
opportunity and civil rights programs, ethics, and other 
general administrative functions. In addition, the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for 
certain activities financed under the Department's working 
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee recommends $613,000. This amount 
is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000 less than the budget 
request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $137,184,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     166,364,000
Committee recommendation................................     145,364,000

    Rental payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance 
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General 
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for 
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest 
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
    Agency budget estimates for rent are based on GSA's 
projection of what it will charge the Agency in a given budget 
year. GSA sets rates according to the market value of property 
or space occupied, and independent of any agency input. Rent 
receipts are placed in a fund used by GSA in the management of 
its real property operations. All Federal Government agencies 
utilizing Government-owned or leased property pay into this 
fund, which provides GSA with a pool of capital to support 
overall Government space needs. In effect, agencies are paying 
prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize the 
inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space, and 
to provide for vacant space in GSA's inventory.
    Building operations and maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the 
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the 
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides 
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain, 
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the 
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms 
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the 
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW, 
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major 
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began 
operations and maintenance 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, DC, and in leased buildings in the 
Metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to 
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, 
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-priority 
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and 
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To 
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation of 
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA strategic 
space plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the Agriculture South Building.
    During fiscal year 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 by USDA agencies 
began in fiscal year 1998 and will be completed in fiscal year 
1999.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities 
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the 
Committee recommends $145,364,000. This amount is $21,000,000 
less than the budget request and $8,180,000 more than the 1999 
appropriation.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
1999 and budget request levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2000 budget       Committee
                                                                1999 estimate       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments..............................................     $108,057,000     $115,542,000     $115,542,000
Building Operations..........................................       24,127,000       24,822,000       24,822,000
Strategic Space Plan.........................................        5,000,000       26,000,000        5,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................      137,184,000      166,364,000      145,364,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Hazardous Waste Management

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $15,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      22,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,700,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $15,700,000 for hazardous waste 
management. This amount is the same as the 1999 appropriation 
and $7,000,000 less than the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $32,168,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      36,117,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,738,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For departmental administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $34,738,000. This amount is $2,570,000 more 
than the 1999 appropriation and $1,379,000 less than the budget 
estimate.
    The Committee recommendation includes the increases 
requested in the President's budget of $1,639,000 and 17 staff 
years for the Office of Civil Rights, and $931,000 and 11 staff 
years for the Office of Outreach to continue to implement 
recommendations from the Civil Rights Action Team report, the 
National Commission on Small Farms report, and to carry out 
other responsibilities of the office.

              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000. This 
amount is the same as the 1999 level and $7,000,000 less than 
the budget request.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $3,668,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       3,805,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,668,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$3,668,000. This amount is the same as the 1999 level and 
$137,000 less than the budget estimate.
    The Committee provides that not less than $2,241,000 shall 
be transferred to agencies funded by this act to support 
congressional relations' activities at the agency level. The 
table below indicates the specific amounts provided by the 
Committee for each agency, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 
and budget request levels.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--
                               --------------------------    Committee
                                                 2000     recommendation
                                    1999       estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters activities.......          957          992            957
Intergovernmental affairs.....          470          488            470
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................        1,427        1,480          1,427
                               =========================================
Agricultural Marketing Service          176          183            176
Agricultural Research Service.          129          133            129
Animal and Plant Health                 101          105            101
 Inspection Service...........
Cooperative State Research,             120          125            120
 Education, and Extension
 Service......................
Farm Service Agency...........          355          368            355
Food and Nutrition Service....          27O          281            27O
Food Safety and Inspection              309          321            309
 Service......................
Foreign Agricultural Service..          183          191            183
Natural Resources Conservation          148          153            148
 Service......................
Risk Management Agency........          109          116            109
Rural Business-Cooperative               52           54             52
 Service......................
Rural Housing Service.........          147          149            147
Rural Utilities Service.......          142          146            142
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................        2,241        2,325          2,241
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................        3,668        3,805          3,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $8,138,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       9,300,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,138,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $8,138,000. This amount is the same as the 
1999 appropriation and $1,162,000 less than the budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $65,128,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      68,246,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,128,000

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act 
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities 
of the Office of the Inspector General which had previously 
been carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $65,128,000. This is $3,118,000 
less than the budget request and the same as the 1999 
appropriation.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $29,194,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      32,675,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,094,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $30,094,000. This amount is 
$2,581,000 less than the budget request and $900,000 more than 
the 1999 appropriation. Included in the Committee's 
recommendation is $900,000 of the increase requested in the 
budget for enhanced legal services.

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

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $540,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       2,061,000
Committee recommendation................................         540,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $540,000. This amount is $1,521,000 less than 
the budget request and the same as the 1999 level.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $65,757,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      55,628,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,419,000

\1\ Of this amount, $791,000 for the Office of Energy was transferred to 
the Office of the Chief Economist pursuant to the Secretary's 
reorganization authority; and $2,000,000 was transferred to ``Food and 
Nutrition Service, Food Program Administration'' for studies and 
evaluations pursuant to Public Law 105-277.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $65,419,000. This amount is $9,791,000 more 
than the budget request and $338,000 less than the 1999 
appropriation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes a decrease of 
$791,000 reflecting the transfer in fiscal year 1999 of the 
Office of Energy and New Uses functions to the Office of the 
Chief Economist pursuant to the Secretary's reorganization 
authority. It includes the increase of $453,000 requested in 
the budget to provide economic analysis in food safety risk 
management. The Committee also provides continued funding at 
the fiscal year 1999 level of $12,195,000 for USDA food 
assistance program studies and evaluations. Of this amount, 
$2,000,000 is transferred to the Food and Nutrition Service to 
conduct programmatic evaluations and analyses.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $103,964,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     100,559,000
Committee recommendation................................      99,355,000

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural 
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely 
projections of current agricultural production and measures of 
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural 
sector which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The 2000 budget estimate includes funding for the census of 
agriculture which was transferred from the Department of 
Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1997 
to consolidate agricultural statistics programs. The census of 
agriculture is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive 
data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number 
of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, 
value of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of 
farm operators, market value of agricultural production sold, 
acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and 
farm irrigation practices. The 1997 Census of Agriculture was 
released on February 1, 1999. The next agricultural census will 
be conducted beginning in January 2003 for the calendar year 
2002.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,355,000. This 
amount is $4,609,000 less than the 1999 appropriation and 
$1,204,000 less than the budget estimate.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $16,490,000 for the 
Census of Agriculture, which is the same as the budget request. 
This is a decrease of $7,109,000 from the fiscal year 1999 
level due to the decreased requirements of the census of 
agriculture, which takes place every 5 years.
    The Committee has provided an additional $2,500,000 for the 
initiation of a fruit and vegetable food safety survey. This 
amount represents the full amount requested for the NASS 
component of the President's food safety initiative.
    With the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act 
and the associated requirements for chemical risk assessments, 
the importance of accurate chemical usage data has become even 
more critical to the agricultural industry and to those tasked 
with evaluating pesticides, setting safe pesticide residue 
standards, and determining exposure risks. Currently, pesticide 
usage statistics are not collected for all sectors of 
agriculture. Unfortunately, in the absence of accurate data on 
actual chemical use, Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 
scientists conducting risk assessments must use a worst-case 
assumption. The Committee expects NASS, to the extent 
practicable, to discontinue low-priority activities so that it 
can expand pesticide use surveys. The Committee expects that 
the data gathered by the NASS surveys will be used by the EPA 
as its basis for risk assessments.

                     Agricultural Research Service

Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $785,518,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     836,868,000
Committee recommendation................................     809,499,000

\1\ Excludes $534,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and 
$4,500,000 transferred from the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
for counter-narcotics research pursuant to Public Law 105-277.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research 
Service, the Committee recommends $809,499,000. This is 
$23,981,000 more than the 1999 level and $27,369,000 less than 
the budget request.
    Of the increases requested in the budget, the Committee 
provides $10,000,000 for food safety research; $4,725,000 for 
emerging diseases and exotic pests; $1,500,000 for sustainable 
ecosystems; $1,100,000 for global climate change; $2,300,000 
for agricultural genome; $300,000 for integrated pest 
management; and $1,500,000 for human nutrition.
    These additional funds are to be allocated for existing or 
planned research, as follows:
    Food Safety.--Manure handling and distribution: Ames, IA 
($300,000), Mississippi State, MS ($500,000), Clay Center, NE 
($250,000), Lincoln, NE ($250,000), Bushland, TX ($250,000), 
Phoenix, AZ ($250,000); risk assessment: Athens, GA ($450,000), 
West Lafayette, IN ($250,000), Clay Center, NE ($500,000), 
Beltsville, MD ($500,000); preharvest antibiotic resistance: 
Athens, GA ($450,000), Ames, IA ($450,000), College Station, TX 
($500,000); fungal toxins: Athens, GA ($250,000); food safety 
engineering: West Lafeyette, IN ($500,000); hyperspectral 
imaging: Stennis Space Center, MS ($500,000); zoonotic disease 
risk: Fayetteville, AR ($250,000); listeriosis/sheep scrapie/
ovine progressive pneumonia virus: Pullman, WA ($600,000); 
pathogen control during slaughter/processing: Athens, GA 
($500,000); pathogen control in fruits/vegetables: Beltsville, 
MD ($500,000), Wyndmoor, PA ($500,000), Albany, CA ($500,000); 
postharvest antimicrobial resistance: Wyndmoor, PA ($500,000), 
Peoria, IL ($500,000).
    Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests.--Fusarium head blight: 
Madison, WI ($300,000), Raleigh, NC ($75,000), consortium of 
land grant universities ($1,800,000); aflatoxin: Stoneville, MS 
($500,000), Phoenix, AZ ($300,000); noxious weeds: Burns, OR 
($300,000); cereal rust research: St. Paul, MN ($300,000); 
emerging diseases: Ft. Pierce, FL ($300,000); reniform 
nematode: Stoneville, MS ($500,000); avian pneumovirus: Athens, 
GA ($250,000); poult enteritis mortality syndrome: Athens, GA 
($100,000).
    Sustainable ecosystems.--Eutrophication/hypoxia: 
Watkinsville, GA ($250,000), University Park, PA ($250,000); 
biologically-based IPM for invasive weeds and pests: Logan, UT 
($250,000), Kearneysville, WV ($250,000); predict ecological 
impacts: Lubbock, TX ($250,000), El Reno, OK ($250,000).
    Global Climate Change.--Carbon cycle research: Mandan, ND 
($300,000), Morris, MN ($300,000), Auburn, AL ($500,000).
    Agricultural genome.--Plant Genetics: Columbia, MO 
($300,000); National Plant Germplasm System: Columbia, MO 
($300,000), Beltsville, MD ($300,000), Albany, CA ($300,000), 
Ames, IA ($300,000), Pullman, WA ($300,000), Ithaca, NY 
($250,000); Ft. Collins, CO ($250,000).
    Integrated pest management.--IPM for fruits and vegetables: 
Ft. Pierce, FL ($300,000).
    Human nutrition.--$1,500,000, to be evenly distributed 
among the six nutrition centers located at Grand Forks, ND; 
Beltsville, MD; Davis, CA; Little Rock, AR; Houston, TX; and 
Boston, MA.
    The Committee recommendation includes $7,314,500 of the 
savings from project terminations proposed in the budget. These 
savings are to be redirected to those research areas for which 
increased funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee 
does not provide funding for contingencies, as requested in the 
budget.
    The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the 
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the 
purposes identified by Congress.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to 
another without prior notification to and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless otherwise 
directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall implement 
appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, and 
activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Animal disease research.--Included in the additional funds 
recommended for food safety research is an increase of $600,000 
for research on listeriosis, sheep scrapie and ovine 
progressive pneumonia virus (OPPV). These funds are to be 
shared equally by the USDA-ARS Animal Disease Research Unit in 
Pullman, WA, and the USDA-ARS Sheep Experiment Station in 
Dubois, ID.
    Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,000,000 to establish a consortium 
for the Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems project. Through 
a cooperative agreement, consortium members, consisting of West 
Virginia University, Virginia Tech, and ARS, will be able to 
provide critical resources to Appalachian cattle farmers to 
ensure the future economic viability of these producers, to 
enhance development in Appalachia, and to protect the 
environment.
    Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase its 
research toward funding alternatives to pesticides and 
improving postharvest technologies for apples.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations 
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication 
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research, 
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel 
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition, 
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing 
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research 
Center at Stoneville, MS.
    The Committee encourages all facilities to share research 
results to benefit and enhance the Nation's aquaculture 
industry.
    The Committee is aware of the growing importance of the 
U.S. aquaculture and the continuing need for research in 
production efficiency, systems, nutrition, water quality, 
genetics, disease, and post-harvest technology issues. In 
Senate Report 104-317, accompanying the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the Committee directed 
the ARS to submit a report to the Committee which inventoried 
the operations, facilities, and personnel support at each ARS 
location where warmwater aquaculture research is conducted. The 
Committee directs ARS to update that report and to expand it to 
include all aquaculture research currently being conducted by 
the agency. The report should again inventory the operations, 
facilities, and personnel support at each ARS location where 
aquaculture research is conducted. It should also address the 
agency's current capacity and requirements for additional 
resources to meet future needs and issues confronting the 
Nation's aquaculture farmers, industry, and consumers; the 
impact on the domestic economy and trade balance; environmental 
requirements of existing and expanded growth in the industry; 
food safety issues; and opportunities in rural America and 
small-scale farming. This report is to be submitted to the 
Committee no later than January 31, 2000.
    Asian bird influenza.--With encouragement from the 
Committee, ARS scientists at Athens, GA, have begun to provide 
technical assistance and collaborate with other leading 
virologists and ornithologists to develop and assess baseline 
data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and their 
migration habits between Southeast Asia and North America and 
their breeding grounds in Alaska. The initial surveillance 
efforts between ARS and the University of Alaska have resulted 
in positive isolations of Avian influenza strains from a 
collaborative effort screening wild Alaska birds. Likewise, the 
ARS and University of Georgia surveillance efforts have 
resulted in 33 avian influenza isolates from mallard ducks and 
coots. With the upcoming addition of an ARS headquarters-
provided ABI 3700 automated gene sequencer and robotics, the 
ARS laboratory in Athens now has an increased capacity to 
process very large numbers of samples. The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS 
to continue to collaborate with the University of Alaska and 
the University of Georgia to further develop and assess these 
baseline data, specifically through increasing the number and 
diversity of wild bird samples obtained and analyzed.
    Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee directs the ARS to 
work with the University of Vermont to develop non-chemical 
controls for the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
    Avian Pneumovirus.--The Committee notes the losses to 
turkey producers due to the spread of avian pneumovirus and 
includes in the increased funding recommended for emerging 
diseases and exotic pests $250,000 for research related to this 
disease.
    Barley research, Pullman, WA.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research conducted at the Pullman ARS unit on barley 
stripe rust. Barley stripe rust is a major threat to the 
Pacific Northwest barley production. The Committee provides the 
fiscal year 1999 funding level for research on barley stripe 
rust.
    Biological control research.--The Committee has been 
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been 
taken by the Mid South Regional Research Center in the area of 
biological controls of cotton insect pests. The economic and 
environmental benefits of this research could eventually reduce 
the vulnerability of crops to major insect pests and create 
alternatives to traditional crop protection methods. The 
Committee continues funding for this project at the fiscal year 
1999 and budget request levels.
    Biomedical materials in plants.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS 
cooperative research with the Biotechnology Foundation, Inc., 
to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a medium to 
produce vaccines and other biomedical products for the 
prevention of human and animal diseases.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The 
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the 
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research 
on both plants and animals at the same levels as fiscal year 
1999.
    Brown Citrus Aphid.--The Brown Citrus Aphid transmits the 
Citrus Tristeza virus. In addition to extensive damages to 
Florida citrus, the virus debilitates crops in Texas, 
California and Arizona. Last year, the ARS submitted a report 
to the Congress outlining a comprehensive control strategy for 
this critical citrus disease complex. The Committee provides 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for highly 
important research on citrus virus.
    Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The 
Committee is aware of the significance of the research 
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products 
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest 
Technology and provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 level for research on shellfish safety and methods of 
decreasing risks to consumers.
    Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI.--The Committee 
supports the work of the twelve-state consortium to control 
fusarium head blight and includes in the increased funding 
provided for emerging diseases and exotic pests an increase of 
$300,000 for the Cereal Crops Research Unit [CCRU] at Madison, 
WI, to address problems related to the barley industry. The 
Committee expects the CCRU to continue work to improve the 
barley industry's quality evaluation capacity.
    Club wheat breeding.--The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for the ARS Pacific 
Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.
    Cotton genetics.--The Committee recognizes the urgency to 
develop high-yielding cotton germplasm and continues support 
for the cotton genetics program at the Mid South Regional 
Research Center at the fiscal year 1999 level.
    Cotton ginning laboratories.--The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1999 levels for ginning research at 
the Stoneville, MS; Mesilla Park, NM; and Lubbock, TX, 
laboratories.
    Cotton value-added/quality research.--U.S. agriculture's 
continued economic strength depends on efficient production and 
value-added technology. The Committee urges ARS to continue to 
place high priority on cotton textile processing research 
conducted at New Orleans, LA, to improve quality, reduce 
defects, and improve easy-care products. The Committee 
recommends funding at the budget request level for this 
research.
    Endophyte.--For the center of excellence in endophyte/grass 
research operated cooperatively by the University of Missouri 
and the University of Arkansas, the Committee recommends 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level. The purpose of 
this research is to enhance the sustainability of fescue-based 
beef production and to develop innovative applications of 
endophyte in improving stress resistance in other forage, turf, 
and grain crop species.
    Fish Diseases.--The Committee notes the important work on 
fish diseases and the significant accomplishments attained as a 
result of the research carried out at the ARS Auburn Fish 
Disease Laboratory. The Committee provides an increase of 
$600,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for greatly needed 
scientific and technical support and equipment essential to the 
expanding workload at this laboratory.
    Floriculture and nursery research.--The Committee provides 
the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the ARS floriculture 
(environmental horticulture) and nursery research program. The 
Committee believes that this program should be conducted at the 
Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center (NWNRC) in Corvallis, 
Oregon. Nursery and greenhouse products rank number one in 
Oregon and the NWNRC is best suited to conduct floriculture and 
nursery research.
    Fruit fly.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1999 level of $278,200 for the University of Hawaii 
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for 
collaborative work on developing efficacious and nontoxic 
methods to control tephritid fruit flies.
    The Committee also supports continued funding by the ARS to 
provide $293,000 to the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to develop and 
implement a program to address control of the papaya ringspot 
virus; and $293,000 to establish nematode resistance in 
commercial pineapple cultivars. The Committee views the 
nematode and ringspot virus activities as supportive of a 
national agricultural research agenda and that of Hawaii.
    Fruit research.--The Committee is aware of the important 
work carried out on fruit research at Wenatchee and Yakima in 
the State of Washington. The Committee expects the Department 
to continue to give increased attention to the work carried out 
at these two facilities. The Committee provides funding at the 
budget request levels for the Yakima and Wenatchee ARS 
facilities.
    Grain legume research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of a grain legume genetics research position at 
Washington State University in Pullman, WA, and continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level to support this position. 
This research will focus on approaches to increase surface crop 
residues and on methods to overcome disease and insect problems 
in grain legumes.
    Grain sorghum ergot.--Sorghum ergot was found in the United 
States for the first time during 1997. High Plains Virus is a 
new pathogen attacking corn, sorghum and wheat in the central 
Great Plains. Gray leaf spot has been a serious disease of corn 
during the past three years. The Committee provides the fiscal 
year 1999 level of funding for the grain sorghum pathology 
program at the ARS Wheat, Sorghum and Forages Research Unit in 
Lincoln, NE. This is the only grain sorghum virus effort within 
ARS for the study of sorghum ergot, High Plains Virus, and gray 
leaf spot in the central Great Plains.
    Grape research.--The Committee acknowledges the importance 
of a horticulturist position specializing in grape production 
at the ARS station in Prosser, WA. The Committee recognizes 
that the research horticulturist is an important link to the 
research efforts conducted at the Northwest Center for Small 
Fruits Research at the ARS Corvallis, OR, station. Recognizing 
the importance of this position and the effect research has had 
on grape production in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the 
Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 
level.
    Hawaii Biological Survey.--The Committee encourages the ARS 
to collaborate with the Hawaii Biological Survey at the Bishop 
Museum in Hawaii on alien pest prevention and control 
activities.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee provides 
$936,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 level, for the 
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. The Committee expects these 
funds to be used to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. 
sugarcane producers and to continue emphasis on supporting the 
expansion of new crops and products, including those from 
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
    Hops.--The Committee recognizes the outstanding increase in 
production of the U.S. hops industry. The industry has taken 
the lead in worldwide production, and Washington State produces 
75 percent of the total U.S. crop. Included in the 
recommendation is the fiscal year 1999 level of funding to 
continue hops research in the Pacific Northwest.
    Human nutrition research.--ARS is directed to submit a 
report to the Committee no later than January 31, 2000, on its 
existing capacity to conduct clinical studies in human 
nutrition research, including human metabolic studies, 
necessary to support research carried out at the USDA Center 
for Human Nutrition located in Beltsville, MD, and the other 
five USDA human nutrition centers. The report should indicate 
how this work is currently funded and whether additional 
resources are required to properly accomplish this activity.
    Integrated farming systems.--The Committee provides 
$500,000 to continue integrated farming systems [IFS] research 
through the ARS Dairy Forage Center, Madison, WI. The Committee 
expects the ARS to undertake an analysis of low-input farming 
practices to determine the comparative advantages of such 
systems as an alternative to more conventional farming systems 
tied to specialized cropping, high-level inputs, and a reliance 
on economies of scale.
    IR-4 Minor Crop Pesticide Registration Program.--The 
Committee recognizes the importance of the IR-4 project, which 
produces research data for clearances for pest control products 
on minor food crops and ornamental commodities. The Committee 
notes that this project is especially critical at this time in 
order to meet the new requirements of the Food Quality 
Protection Act, and to fully implement its reduced risk pest 
management strategy for minor crops.
    Jointed Goatgrass.--Jointed Goatgrass infests nearly 5 
million acres of winter wheat in the western United States, 
costing wheat growers an estimated $145,000,000 annually. 
Jointed goatgrass is impossible to control selectively with 
current methods because it is genetically related to wheat and 
has increased rapidly with widespread adoption of conservation 
tillage systems. It reduces yields, increases dockage costs, 
and reduces grain and seed value. The Committee expects the ARS 
to continue funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for the 
multi-disciplinary national research effort among State and 
Federal scientists to develop effective control measures to 
reduce the impact of jointed goatgrass on wheat production. The 
research is to be coordinated with companion research funded by 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
    Kenaf.--The Committee recommends continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1999 level for the cooperative agreement between 
ARS and Mississippi State University to further kenaf research 
and product development efforts. The Committee recommends the 
redirection of $100,000 of this amount toward research with 
medicinal plants and $100,000 to the ARS project ``Nutritional 
and Environmental Management to Improve Quality and Production 
Efficiency of Poultry'' for joint activities with the 
Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides the fiscal year 
1999 level of funding to continue research related to a 
replacement for methyl bromide. The Committee expects the ARS 
to hold administrative overhead costs to a minimum and to 
direct a significant portion of these funds to field testing 
and to direct technology transfer to land grant institutions 
involved in research projects under this program.
    Minor crop pests.--The Committee provides continued funding 
at the fiscal year 1999 level of $278,000 for the University of 
Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to 
develop environmentally safe methods to control pests and 
diseases in small-scale tropical and subtropical agricultural 
systems.
    National Center for Agricultural Law Research and 
Information.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1999 level for the National Center for Agricultural 
Law Research and Information at the Leflar School of Law in 
Fayetteville, AR.
    National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 
1999 level to the National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture for the Improvement in Aquaculture Systems 
Environmental Compatibility and Economic Efficiency project. 
The project will enhance the production efficiency and minimize 
the environmental impact of aquaculture production systems, and 
be conducted through the establishment of a consortium, 
consisting of the Center and the Conservation Fund's Freshwater 
Institute.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for work now underway at 
the National Sedimentation Laboratory, and provides an increase 
of $50,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand its 
studies on the use of acoustics to characterize soils, 
determine moisture content, and monitor crop growth. The 
Laboratory is expected to continue its close relationship with 
the National Center for Physical Acoustics in carrying out 
these research efforts.
    The Committee also provides an additional $500,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 level to the National Sedimentation Laboratory 
to conduct research on sources and causes of water impairment 
in the Yazoo River Basin and to seek economically feasible 
``Best Management Practices'' for attaining new water quality 
goals, commonly referenced as Total Maximum Daily Loads 
(TMDL's), at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels.
    National Warmwater Aquaculture Center.--The Committee is 
aware of the importance of gains which are being made in 
catfish production through the improvements offered by the 
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. The Committee continues 
its support at the fiscal year 1999 funding level for the 
aquaculture program at Stoneville, and provides an additional 
$308,000 for the Center to conduct hill-area aquaculture 
research.
    Natural products.--The Committee provides an additional 
$750,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the ARS to 
continue its cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
the Development of Natural Products for pharmaceutical research 
in support of research on natural products.
    New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory.--
The Committee provides an additional $300,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 level for an agronomist position at the USDA-ARS New 
England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory in Orono, 
ME. The work of this laboratory is of significant benefit to 
potato producers in Maine, the New England region, and the 
industry nationwide.
    Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory.--The Northern 
Grain Insects Research Laboratory in Brookings, SD, conducts 
research critical to agriculture in the Northern Great Plains. 
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1999 level to 
ensure that the Laboratory's research projects in areas such as 
corn rootworm management; integrated soil, crop and pest 
management strategies for sustainable production; control 
tactics and decision models for integrated pest management; and 
pest population ecology and behavioral mechanisms in cropping 
systems continue to be fully funded.
    Northern Plains Research Laboratory, Sidney, MT.--The 
Committee provides an additional $750,000 from the fiscal 1999 
level for a new research program at the ARS Northern Plains 
Research Laboratory in Sidney, MT, to develop high value 
irrigated rotation crops. This additional amount will fund 
three scientists focusing on plant pathology, water and 
irrigation management, and value-added/high value crops and 
crop rotations.
    Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center.--Nursery and 
greenhouse products rank third in the Nation and No. 1 in 
Oregon. As the public demands more and more plants and trees to 
help clean the air, prevent water runoff and soil erosion, and 
improve water quality and conservation, the nursery industry is 
playing an expanding and significant environmental research 
role. The Committee encourages ARS to expand its support for 
the Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center's research program 
(Corvallis, OR) in these environmental areas. The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the ARS 
Corvallis station.
    Pacific Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.--The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for 
the ARS Pacific Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program (OR, WA).
    Pear thrips.--The Committee recognizes the value of 
collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to 
develop controls for pear thrips and provides funding at the 
fiscal year 1999 level to continue this important research 
program.
    Plant genetics research, Columbia, MO.--Included in the 
additional funding recommended for agricultural genome, the 
Committee provides an increase of $300,000, as requested in the 
budget, to develop software to improve the statistical 
precision of mapping genes and locating quantitative trait loci 
(QTLs) to produce physical maps, and to efficiently manipulate 
and analyze data from microarray assays at the ARS Plant 
Genetics Research Unit, Columbia, MO.
    Plant introduction pathologist position.--The Committee 
provides $250,000 to support the continued funding of a plant 
introduction pathologist at the USDA-ARS Plant Introduction 
Station at Washington State University in Pullman, WA. This 
position is to be devoted to grain legumes and foliar diseases 
of dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas.
    Postharvest Quarantine Research.--Technical barriers by 
other countries on the importance of U.S. commodities is one of 
the greatest obstacles to free trade of American crops. 
Recognizing the importance and relevance foreign countries 
place on ARS research related to treatment protocols and pest 
concerns, the Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding for quarantine research to ensure that U.S. commodities 
have expanded access to overseas markets.
    Potato late blight research.--The Committee is aware that 
``late blight'' has become an ongoing problem in the Pacific 
Northwest. The Committee urges the Agricultural Research 
Service to continue its research at the Aberdeen, ID, ARS 
station to identify horticulturally acceptable clones with 
``late blight'' resistance in both early generation and 
advanced clonal material that have a high level of resistance 
for use as crossing parents. The Committee encourages the ARS 
to work with the National Potato Council on how funds can best 
be used for research priorities.
    Potato research enhancement.--The Committee acknowledges 
the importance of potato research conducted at the Irrigated 
Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, WA. 
Recognizing the need to enable growers to optimize potato yield 
and quality goals while improving environmental stewardship, 
the Committee provides increased funding of $250,000 for potato 
research at the Prosser, WA, station. This research will 
provide the integration of irrigation, nutrient management, 
pest control and crop rotation strategies into sustainable, 
holistic crop production systems that optimize total potato 
management practices.
    Program continuations.--Including research programs 
specifically mentioned herein, the Committee directs the ARS to 
continue at the fiscal year 1999 level the following areas of 
research: ``Immunity and Diagnostics of Diseases and Parasites 
of Catfish,'' Auburn, AL; ``Rice Genetics Research,'' 
``Warmwater Foodfish Health Management Research,'' Stuttgart, 
AR; ``Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle and Other Non-
indigenous Plant Pests in the Western USA,'' ``Ecologically 
Based Management of Salt Cedar (Tamarix SP) in the Western 
U.S.,'' ``In Vitro Creation and Commercialization of High 
Solids Tomatoes and High Solids, Low Sugar Potatoes,'' 
``Technology to Enhance Soybean Oil for Food and Non Food 
Uses,'' Albany, CA; ``Shallow Groundwater Management Systems 
for Arid Irrigated Areas,'' Fresno, CA; ``Floriculture,'' 
Washington, D.C.; ``Behavioral Ecology and Management of Crop 
Insect Pests with Semiochemicals,'' ``Management of Termites as 
Urban Pests in the American Pacific,'' Gainsville, FL; 
``Identification and Molecular Characterization of Agents 
Causing Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome,'' Athens, GA; 
``Develop, Evaluate and Transfer Technology to Improve 
Efficiency and Quality in Peanuts,'' Dawson, GA; ``Tropical 
Aquaculture Feeds and Culture Technology: Development of Shrimp 
Feeds,'' Hilo, Hawaii; ``Barley and Oat Germplasm Enhancement 
and Small Grains Germplasm Evaluation and Maintenance,'' 
``Development and Use of Molecular Techniques in Oat 
Enhancement,'' ``Development of Genetically Enhanced Fish and 
Feeds for Aquaculture Utilizing Specialized Grains,'' 
``Development and Use of Molecular Techniques in Oat 
Enhancement,'' Aberdeen, ID; ``Animal Health Consortium,'' 
``Genetic Engineering of Anaerobic Bacteria for Improved Rumen 
Function,'' ``Bioprocess and Metabolic Engineering 
Technologies,'' ``Biotechnology R&D Corporation,'' ``Enhanced 
Use of Plant Proteins: Identifying, Isolating and Relating 
Structures to Properties,'' ``New Crops for Industrial 
Products,'' ``Novel Carbohydrate-Based Materials via 
Bioconversion Processes,'' ``Thermomechanical Processing of 
Natural Polymers,'' Peoria, IL; ``Reduced Herbicide Inputs for 
Effective Weed Management Systems to Improve Water Quality,'' 
``Sensors and Systems for Site-Specific Crop Management to 
Improve Environmental Quality,'' ``Soybean Diseases,'' Urbana, 
IL; ``Ecologically-Based Pest Management of Selected Insect 
Pests of Corn,'' ``Genetic Characterization of Soybean 
Germplasm,'' ``Genetics of Host Resistance to Pathogens in 
Cereal Crops,'' ``Impact of Agricultural Management Practices 
on Soil and Water Quality at the Field and Watershed,'' 
``Quantitative Genetic Analysis and Improvement of Corn 
Populations,'' Ames, IA; ``Genetic Enhancement of Hard Red 
Winter Wheat for Resistance to Multiple Biotic Stress,'' 
Manhattan, KS; ``Developing Integrated Weed Management Systems 
for Efficient and Sustainable Sugarcane Production,'' ``Disease 
and Insect Control Mechanisms for the Enhancement of Sugarcane 
Germplasm Resistance,'' ``Improving Sugarcane Productivity by 
Conventional and Molecular Approaches to Genetic Development,'' 
Houma, LA (New Orleans, LA, work site); ``Comparative Textural 
Analysis of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables,'' 
``Development and Evaluation of New Remote Sensing Technologies 
to Assess Food and Fiber Production,'' ``Ecologically-Based 
Technologies for Controlling Ixodes Scapularis and Reducing 
Lyme Disease,'' ``Enhancement of Strawberry, Blueberry, and 
Other Small Fruit Crops Through Molecular Approaches and 
Breeding,'' ``Improving Quality of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce 
by Preventing Deterioration in Cold Storage,'' ``National 
Turfgrass Evaluation Program,'' Beltsville, MD; ``Dietary 
Assessments of Rural Older Persons,'' Boston, MA; ``Germplasm 
Evaluation and Genetic Improvement of Oats and Wild Rice,'' 
``Wild Rice Breeding and Germplasm Improvement,'' St. Paul, MN; 
``Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Natural Products for 
Pest Control and Alternative Crops,'' Oxford, MS; ``Small Fruit 
Cultural and Genetic Research in the Mid-South,'' Popularville, 
MS; ``Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Kenaf as a Field 
Crop in Mississippi,'' ``Catfish Genetics and Breeding 
Research,'' ``Genetic-Physiological Parameters that Enhance 
Fiber Quality,'' ``Improve Production Efficiency in 
Aquaculture,'' Stoneville, MS; ``Farming Systems to Improve 
Soil and Water Quality,'' ``Plant Genetics Research,'' 
Columbia, MO; ``Optimizing Reproduction Efficiency to Enhance 
Profit and Sustainability of Range Beef Production,'' Miles 
City, MT; ``Metabolism and Nutritional Management of Prolific 
Sows During Gestation and Lactation,'' Clay Center, NE; 
``Biology and Control of Virus Diseases of Sorghum,'' Lincoln, 
NE; pear thrips research, Ithaca, NY; ``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,'' Raleigh, NC; 
``Development of Soybean Germplasm and Production Systems for 
High Yield and Drought Prone Environments,'' Wooster, OH; 
``Improving Resistance of Peanut to Biological Stress Through 
Germplasm and Cultural Enhancement,'' Stillwater, OK; ``Biology 
and Management of Soilborne Diseases and Beneficial Soil and 
Root-Inhabiting Microorganisms,'' ``Characterization of Induced 
Cytokinin Changes in Wheat,'' ``Hops Genetics and Breeding for 
Improved Flavor, Agronomic Performance and Pest Resistance,'' 
``Partitioning of Photosynthate as Influenced by Genotype, 
Mycorrhizae and Air Enriched with CO2,'' 
``Preservation of Clonal Genetic Resources of Temperate Fruit, 
Nut, and Speciality Crops,'' ``Residue Management and Grass 
Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture,'' ``Specific 
Cooperative Agreements on Horticultural Crops,'' Corvallis, OR; 
``New Processes for Generating Valuable Co-Products from Corn 
Fiber,'' ``New Processes for Obtaining Higher Value-Added 
Products from Agricultural Lipids,'' ``Value-Added Products 
from Fruit and Vegetable Processing Wastes,'' Wyndmoor, PA; 
``Rice Germplasm and Variety Improvement in the Southern United 
States,'' Beaumont, TX; ``Harvesting and Ginning Technologies 
for Stripper Cotton,'' Lubbock, TX; ``Parasite Mite Control in 
Honey Bee Colonies Utilized in Honey Production and Crop 
Pollination,'' Weslaco, TX; ``Arctic Plant Germplasm 
Introduction and Research,'' Palmer, AK (work site of Pullman, 
WA); ``Biochemical and Molecular Regulation of Preharvest 
Sprouting and Grain Dormancy in Wheat,'' ``Control of Rusts and 
Smuts of Wheat and Barley,'' ``Genetically Enhanced Wheat for 
Quality Productivity and Resistance to Biotic and Abiotic 
Stresses,'' ``Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement of Cool Season 
Food Legumes,'' Pullman, WA; ``Agroforestry Systems for the 
Appalachian Region,'' Beckley, WV; ``Utilization of Waste and 
Byproducts from Aquaculture to Enhance Economic 
Sustainability,'' Leetown, WV; ``The Role of Life Strategies of 
Phytopathogenic Bacteria in the Epidemiology of Foliar 
Diseases,'' Madison, WI.
    Red imported fire ants.--Infestations of Red Imported Fire 
Ants have been identified in 21 southern California cities, as 
well as in a number of states in the Southeast and the 
Southwest. Nationally, damages caused by imported fire ants to 
agriculture, human health, infrastructure, farm animals and 
wildlife are estimated at several billions of dollars each 
year. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 above the 
fiscal year 1999 level for research on effective control of 
imported fire ants infestation. This research is to be carried 
out at the ARS Mid South Regional Research Station in 
cooperation with the National Center for Physical Acoustics.
    Root diseases of wheat and barley.--The Committee provides 
an additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to the 
ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Research Unit located 
at Washington State University in Pullman, WA, for research to 
control root diseases of wheat and barley. Of the total 
provided, $125,000 is to be transferred to the Oregon State 
University Columbia Basin Agriculture Research Center, 
Pendleton, OR; $75,000 is to be transferred to the University 
of Idaho Research and Extension Center, Kimberly, ID; and 
$300,000 is to remain in the ARS program at Pullman, WA.
    Rural geriatric nutrition research.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the further 
development of a comprehensive nutrition outreach, treatment, 
and research program to assist the rural elderly population. 
Geisinger Health System's Rural Geriatric Nutrition Center in 
Danville, PA, is the lead organization undertaking this 
initiative in collaboration with other universities.
    Silverleaf whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known 
as the sweetpotato whitefly, continues to cause millions of 
dollars in crop damage in several States, including Hawaii. The 
Committee recommends participation by all affected States in 
the collaborative effort to control this pest.
    Small farms.--The Committee expects the ARS to continue its 
support for the South Central Family Farm Research Center at 
Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than the 1999 
level for continuation of agroforestry research in conjunction 
with work at the University of Missouri.
    Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the USDA Small Fruits Research 
Station in Poplarville, MS, and provides an increase of 
$750,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand the research 
efforts of the station on ornamental and vegetable crops.
    Small grains geneticist, Aberdeen, ID.--The Committee is 
aware that the ARS is considering the elimination of the small 
grains geneticist position at the USDA-ARS Aberdeen, ID, 
station. The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 funding 
level to continue research to improve both barley and oat 
genetic stocks. This research provides direct benefits to the 
U.S. barley industry, including end users who rely on improved 
quality traits in malting barley.
    Soil chemist, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research 
Laboratory.--The Committee continues funding for the current 
soil chemist position and related research at the Northwest 
Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho. 
The Committee understands that the ARS intends to replace the 
retiring soil chemist at the laboratory and expects the agency 
to fill this position as soon as it becomes vacant in fiscal 
year 2000.
    Southern Insect Management.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $75,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level of funding 
for a cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
Physical Acoustics (NCPA) to develop methods to monitor pest 
populations using advanced acoustic techniques; at least 
$250,000 of the total funding is to be used to support the 
existing program at the NCPA.
    Soybean research.--The Committee is aware of the important 
ARS-supported soybean genetics work being done and continues to 
strongly support ongoing research at Ames, IA, and Stoneville, 
MS, aimed at increasing the productivity and profitability of 
soybean production and processing. The Committee expects ARS to 
continue both of the programs at not less than the fiscal year 
1999 funding levels.
    Subterranean termite.--The Committee provides $141,500 for 
termite research in Hawaii to devise and test control methods 
that do not endanger public health and safety.
    Sugarcane biotechnology research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of furthering the science of molecular 
techniques in sugarcane. By mapping useful genes, transferring 
exotic genes into sugarcane germplasm, and improving selection 
techniques for sugarcane cultivars, much progress can be made 
to increase the efficiency and global competitiveness of the 
U.S. sugar industry. To continue the strong public/private 
relationship between ARS and the American Sugar Cane League and 
expand biotechnology at the work site of the ARS Southern 
Regional Research Center in Houma, LA, the Committee provides 
the fiscal year 1999 level of funding. The Committee expects 
ARS to collaborate with the American Sugar Cane League in 
efforts to coordinate research with other commodity-based 
biotechnology research and continue funding for this vital 
research.
    Sunflower research.--The Committee provides an additional 
$300,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for a molecular 
geneticist at the USDA's ARS Sunflower Unit at North Dakota 
State University in Fargo, ND. The addition of a geneticist to 
this research program will provide the resources needed to 
conduct gene mapping research and develop ``markers'' for 
specific breeding traits, such as disease and insect 
resistance.
    Temperate fruit flies.--The presence of temperate fruit 
flies (cherry flies and apple maggots) in the cherry production 
areas of the United States, including portions of the Pacific 
Northwest and the Great Lakes Region, is frequently cited by 
potential export markets such as Australia, Argentina, and 
South Africa as barriers to cherry imports from the U.S. The 
total value of U.S. sweet cherry exports alone in 1997 was over 
$134,000,000. The Committee provides an additional $300,000 at 
Yakima, WA, to develop technology for control and management of 
temperate fruit flies.
    Tomato spotted wilt virus.--The Committee is aware of the 
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus 
(TSWV) in Hawaii and encourages the agency to provide funds to 
University of Hawaii scientists to transfer genetic resistance 
to TSWV into University of Hawaii breeding lines for impacted 
vegetables.
    Tropical aquaculture research.--The Committee provides 
$1,583,800 for the ``Aquaculture Productivity Research'' and 
the ``Requirements and Sources of Nutrients for Marine Shrimp'' 
projects in Hawaii to ensure continuation of the significant 
scientific and commercial contributions offered by the Oceanic 
Institute and natural resource conditions found only in Hawaii.
    U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.--The Committee has 
continued the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the U.S. 
Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE. The Committee 
recommends that the funds which currently support the 
``Metabolism and Nutritional Management of Prolific Sows During 
Gestation and Lactation'' project proposed for termination in 
the President's budget be redirected to support high priority 
food safety or waste management research.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to the U.S. Pacific 
Basin Agricultural Research Center to (1) support the 
production and marketing of high-quality, high-value tropical 
and subtropical crops; (2) integrate safe and effective pest 
management practices and post-harvest treatments; and (3) 
facilitate the transfer of technology developed by the Center 
to end users through existing Hawaii-based educational 
organizations.
    Viticulture research.--With the emerging importance of the 
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee 
provides an increase of $250,000 from the fiscal year 1999 
level to establish a viticulture research position at the 
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center and an 
additional $200,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level, split 
evenly, to upgrade the current USDA-ARS programs at the Center 
and to provide for cooperative research agreements with 
University of Idaho researchers for viticulture research.
    Water quality.--The Committee acknowledges the progress 
which has been made toward water quality objectives in 
conjunction with the pesticide application technology research 
currently conducted at the Mid South Regional Research Center. 
The ARS should continue this joint research initiative and 
expand it through the integrated pest management objectives 
outlined in the agency's budget request.
    Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee includes 
an increase of $325,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS 
for laboratory analysis of water samples collected during 
implementation of, and in accordance with, the Missouri 
Watershed Research, Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
    Wind Erosion Research.--The Committee continues funding at 
the fiscal year 1999 level for the Wind Erosion Research Unit 
(WERU) in Manhattan, KS. The Committee directs the ARS to avoid 
reprogramming or routing any of the provided funds to or 
through other wind erosion facilities in the ARS system during 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee is also aware of a carbon 
sequestration study at Kansas State University. The Committee 
encourages the WERU to work in partnership with the University 
on this study.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $56,437,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      44,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      53,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,000,000. This 
is $8,500,000 more than the budget estimate and $3,437,000 less 
than the 1999 appropriation. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are indicated in the following table:

                      ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--
                               --------------------------    Committee
      State and facility            1999     2000 budget  recommendation
                                  enacted      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation             500  ...........          1,400
 and Western Cotton
 Laboratory, Maricopa.........
California:
    Western Human Nutrition           6,150        9,000          9,000
     Research Center, Davis...
    Western Regional Research   ...........        2,600          2,600
     Center, Albany...........
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin            4,500  ...........          5,500
 Agricultural Research Center.
Illinois:
    National Center for               8,200        1,800          1,800
     Agricultural Utilization
     Research, Peoria.........
    USDA greenhouse complex,    ...........  ...........            400
     Urbana...................
Iowa: National Animal Disease         2,957  ...........          3,000
 Center, Ames.................
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing          1,400  ...........            100
 Research Laboratory, Manhat-
 tan..........................
Louisiana: Southern Regional          6,000        5,500          5,500
 Research Center, New Orleans.
Maryland:
    Beltsville Agricultural           2,500       13,000         13,000
     Research Center,
     Beltsville...............
    National Agricultural             1,200  ...........  ..............
     Library, Beltsville......
Mississippi: Biocontrol and             200  ...........          2,000
 Insect Rearing Laboratory,
 Stone-  ville................
Montana:
    Fort Keogh laboratory,      ...........  ...........            530
     Miles City...............
    Pest quarantine and               7,300  ...........  ..............
     integrated pest
     management facility,
     Sidney...................
New Mexico: Jornada Range             6,700  ...........  ..............
 Research Station, Las Cruces.
New York: Plum Island Animal          3,500        8,200          3,500
 Disease Center, Greenport....
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional        3,300        4,400          4,400
 Research Center, Philadelphia
Utah: Poisonous Plant                    30  ...........            270
 Laboratory, Logan............
West Virginia: National Center        2,000  ...........  ..............
 for Cool and Cold Water
 Aquaculture, Leetown.........
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................       56,437       44,500         53,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee provides funds to complete planning and 
design work for the Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Logan, UT; 
the Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory in 
Maricopa, AZ; and Phase III of the U.S. Marketing Research 
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS. In addition, funding is included for 
planning and design work for the Fort Keogh Laboratory, Miles 
City, MT; and the USDA greenhouse complex, Urbana, IL.
    Funds provided for the ARS National Animal Disease Lab, 
Ames, IA, are for a major renovation of wings B and C of 
Building 3 at the facility. Funds provided for the Biocontrol 
and Insect Rearing Laboratory, Stoneville, MS, are for site 
preparation.
    In addition, the Committee provides $5,500,000 toward 
construction of the office and laboratory phase of the U.S. 
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                   research and education activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $481,216,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \1\ 468,965,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 474,377,000

\1\ Excludes activities funded under the new ``Integrated activities'' 
account.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For research and education activities of the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $474,377,000. This amount is $6,839,000 less than 
the 1999 appropriation and $5,412,000 more than the budget 
request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities of the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
                    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Committee
                                      1999      2000 budget   recommen-
                                 appropriation                  dation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act.......       180,545      153,672      180,545
Cooperative forestry research          21,932       19,882       21,932
 (McIntire-Stennis)............
Payments to 1890 colleges and          29,676       27,735       29,676
 Tuskegee......................
Special research grants (Public
 Law 89-106):
    Advanced spatial                    1,000   ...........       1,000
     technologies (Mississippi)
    Aegilops cylindricum                  360   ...........         360
     (Washington)..............
    Aflatoxin (Illinois).......           113   ...........         130
    Agriculture-based                     250   ...........         300
     industrial lubricants
     (Iowa)....................
    Agricultural                          131   ...........         131
     diversification (Hawaii)..
    Agricultural                          250   ...........         250
     diversification--Red River
     Trade Corridor (Minnesota,
     North Dakota).............
    Agriculture water usage               300   ...........         300
     (Georgia).................
    Alliance for food                     300   ...........         300
     protection (Georgia,
     Nebraska).................
    Alternative crops (North              550   ...........         550
     Dakota)...................
    Alternative crops for arid            100   ...........         100
     lands (Texas).............
    Alternative marine and                308   ...........  ...........
     fresh water species
     (Mississippi).............
    Alternative salmon products           400   ...........         650
     (Alaska)..................
    Animal science food safety          1,521   ...........       1,521
     consortium (Arkansas,
     Iowa, Kansas).............
    Apple fireblight (Michigan,           500   ...........         500
     New York).................
    Aquaculture (Louisiana)....           330   ...........         330
    Aquaculture (Mississippi)..           592   ...........         592
    Aquaculture (North           .............  ...........         300
     Carolina).................
    Aquaculture (Virginia).....           100   ...........         100
    Aquaculture product and               750   ...........         750
     marketing development
     (West Virginia)...........
    Babcock Institute                     400   ...........         500
     (Wisconsin)...............
    Binational agricultural               400        2,000          500
     research and development
     fund......................
    Biodiesel research                    152   ...........         152
     (Missouri)................
    Blocking Anhydrous           .............  ...........         250
     methamphetamine production
     (Iowa)....................
    Brucellosis vaccines                  150   ...........         500
     (Montana).................
    Center for Animal Health              113   ...........         113
     and Productivity
     (Pennsylvania)............
    Center for Innovative Food            381   ...........  ...........
     Technology (Ohio).........
    Center for Rural Studies              200   ...........         200
     (Vermont).................
    Cheseapeake Bay agroecology           150   ...........         150
     (Maryland)................
    Chesapeake Bay aquaculture.           385   ...........         385
    Citrus tristeza............           500   ...........         500
    Competitiveness of                    680   ...........         680
     agricultural products
     (Washington)..............
    Contagious equine metritis            250   ...........  ...........
     (Kentucky)................
    Cool season legume research           329   ...........         329
     (Idaho, Washington).......
    Cotton research (Texas)....           200   ...........  ...........
    Cranberry/blueberry                   150   ...........  ...........
     (Massachusetts)...........
    Cranberry/blueberry disease           220   ...........         220
     and breeding (New Jersey).
    Dairy and meat goat                    63   ...........          63
     research (Texas)..........
    Delta rural revitalization            148   ...........         148
     (Mississippi).............
    Designing foods for health            250   ...........         400
     (Texas)...................
    Drought mitigation                    200   ...........         200
     (Nebraska)................
    Ecosystems (Alabama).......           500   ...........  ...........
    Environmental research (New           486   ...........  ...........
     York).....................
    Environmental risk factors--          100   ...........  ...........
     cancer (New York).........
    Environmentally-safe         .............  ...........         200
     products (Vermont)........
    Expanded wheat pasture                285   ...........         285
     (Oklahoma)................
    Farm and rural business                87   ...........  ...........
     finance (Illinois)........
    Feed barley for rangeland             600   ...........         750
     cattle (Montana)..........
    Floriculture (Hawaii)......           250   ...........         250
    Food and Agriculture Policy           800   ...........         900
     Institute (Iowa, Missouri)
    Food irradiation (Iowa)....           200   ...........         200
    Food Marketing Policy                 400   ...........         400
     Center (Connecticut)......
    Food Processing Center                 42   ...........          42
     (Nebraska)................
    Food quality (Alaska)......           350   ...........  ...........
    Food safety................         5,000       ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )
    Food safety (Alabama)......           300   ...........  ...........
    Food Systems Research Group           225   ...........         500
     (Wisconsin)...............
    Forages for advancing        .............  ...........         250
     livestock production
     (Kentucky)................
    Forestry (Arkansas)........           523   ...........  ...........
    Fruit and vegetable market            320   ...........         320
     analysis (Arizona,
     Missouri).................
    Generic commodity promotion           212   ...........  ...........
     research and evaluation
     (New York)................
    Global change..............         1,000        1,567        1,000
    Global marketing support              127   ...........  ...........
     service (Arkansas)........
    Grain sorghum (Kansas).....           106   ...........         106
    Grass seed cropping systems           423   ...........         423
     for a sustainable
     agriculture (Washington,
     Oregon, Idaho)............
    Human nutrition (Iowa).....           473   ...........         473
    Human nutrition (Louisiana)           752   ...........         752
    Human nutrition (New York).           622   ...........  ...........
    Hydroponic tomato                     200   ...........  ...........
     production (Ohio).........
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance          1,184   ...........       1,184
     for Biotechnology.........
    Improved dairy management             296   ...........         296
     practices (Pennsylvania)..
    Improved fruit practices              445   ...........  ...........
     (Michigan)................
    Infectious disease research           250   ...........         325
     (Colorado)................
    Institute for Food Science          1,250   ...........       1,250
     and Engineering (Arkansas)
    Integrated production                 180   ...........         180
     systems (Oklahoma)........
    International agricultural            250   ...........         250
     market structures and
     institutions (Kentucky)...
    International arid lands              400   ...........         400
     consortium................
    Iowa biotechnology                  1,564   ...........       1,564
     consortium................
    Livestock and dairy policy            475   ...........  ...........
     (New York, Texas).........
    Lowbush blueberry research            220   ...........         220
     (Maine)...................
    Maple research (Vermont)...           100   ...........         100
    Meadowfoam (Oregon)........           300   ...........         300
    Michigan biotechnology                675   ...........         675
     consortium................
    Midwest Advanced Food                 423   ...........         423
     Manufacturing Alliance....
    Midwest agricultural                  592   ...........         592
     products (Iowa)...........
    Milk safety (Pennsylvania).           250   ...........         385
    Minor use animal drugs (IR-           550          550          550
     4)........................
    Molluscan shellfish                   400   ...........         400
     (Oregon)..................
    Multicommodity research               364   ...........         364
     (Oregon)..................
    Multicropping strategies              127   ...........         127
     for aquaculture (Hawaii)..
    National biological impact            254          254          254
     assessment................
    Nematode resistance genetic           127   ...........         127
     engineering (New Mexico)..
    New crop opportunities       .............  ...........         125
     (Alaska)..................
    New crop opportunities       .............  ...........         750
     (Kentucky)................
    Nonfood uses of                        64   ...........          64
     agricultural products
     (Nebraska)................
    North Dakota Trade and       .............         300   ...........
     Policy Research Center....
    Oil resources from desert             175   ...........         175
     plants (New Mexico).......
    Organic waste utilization             100   ...........         100
     (New Mexico)..............
    Pasture and forage research           225   ...........         225
     (Utah)....................
    Peach tree short life                 162   ...........         162
     (South Carolina)..........
    Peanut allergy reduction     .............  ...........         500
     (Alabama).................
    Pest control alternatives             106   ...........         106
     (South Carolina)..........
    Phytophthora root rot (New            127   ...........         127
     Mexico)...................
    Plant, drought, and disease           150   ...........         250
     resistance gene cataloging
     (New Mexico)..............
    Postharvest rice straw                300   ...........  ...........
     (California)..............
    Potato research............         1,300   ...........       1,400
    Precision agriculture                 500   ...........       1,000
     (Kentucky)................
    Preharvest food safety                212   ...........         212
     (Kansas)..................
    Preservation and processing           226   ...........         226
     research (Oklahoma).......
    Rangeland ecosystems (New             200   ...........         200
     Mexico)...................
    Regional barley gene                  400   ...........         500
     mapping project...........
    Regionalized implications             294   ...........         294
     of farm programs
     (Missouri, Texas).........
    Rice modeling (Arkansas)...           296   ...........         296
    Rural Development Centers             523          423          523
     (Pennsylvania, Iowa, North
     Dakota, Mississippi,
     Oregon, Louisiana)........
    Rural Policies Research               644   ...........         644
     Institute (Nebraska,
     Missouri).................
    Russian wheat aphid                   200   ...........         200
     (Colorado)................
    Seafood and aquaculture               305   ...........         305
     harvesting, processing,
     and marketing
     (Mississippi).............
    Seafood harvesting,          .............  ...........         650
     processing, and marketing
     (Alaska)..................
    Small fruit research                  300   ...........         300
     (Oregon, Washington,
     Idaho)....................
    Southwest consortium for              338   ...........         338
     plant genetics and water
     resources.................
    Soybean cyst nematode                 475   ...........         500
     (Missouri)................
    STEEP III--water quality in           500   ...........         500
     Northwest.................
    Sustainable agriculture               445   ...........  ...........
     (Michigan)................
    Sustainable agriculture and            95   ...........         100
     natural resources
     (Pennsylvania)............
    Sustainable agriculture                59   ...........          59
     systems (Nebraska)........
    Sustainable beef supply               500   ...........         750
     (Montana).................
    Sustainable pest management           400   ...........         500
     for dryland wheat (Mon-
     tana).....................
    Swine waste management                500   ...........         500
     (North Carolina)..........
    Tillage, silviculture,                212   ...........         212
     waste management
     (Louisiana)...............
    Tomato wilt virus (Georgia)           200   ...........         200
    Tropical and subtropical...         2,724   ...........       2,724
    Turkey carna virus                    200   ...........  ...........
     (Indiana).................
    Urban pests (Georgia)......            64   ...........          64
    Vidalia onions (Georgia)...           100   ...........         100
    Viticulture consortium              1,000   ...........       1,200
     (California, Pennsylvania,
     New  York)................
    Water conservation (Kansas)            79   ...........          79
    Water quality..............         3,461       ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )
    Weed control (North Dakota)           423   ...........         423
    Wetland plants (Louisiana).           600   ...........         600
    Wheat genetic research                261   ...........         261
     (Kansas)..................
    Wood utilization (Alaska,           5,136   ...........       5,261
     Idaho, Oregon,
     Mississippi, Minnesota,
     North Carolina, Maine,
     Michigan, Tennessee)......
    Wool (Texas, Montana,                 300   ...........         300
     Wyoming)..................
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, special research          63,116        5,094       54,276
       grants..................
                                ========================================
Improved pest control:
    Critical issues............           200          467          200
    Expert IPM decision support           177          260          177
     system....................
    Integrated pest management.         2,731        2,731        2,731
    IR-4 minor crop pest                8,990       10,711        8,990
     management................
    Pesticide impact assessment         1,327       ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )
    Pest management                     1,623        4,200        1,623
     alternatives programs.....
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, improved pest             15,048       18,369       13,721
       control.................
                                ========================================
Competitive research grants:
    Plant systems..............        41,000       69,000       41,000
    Animal systems.............        29,000       49,000       29,000
    Nutrition, food quality,           16,000       28,000       16,000
     and health................
    Natural resources and the          20,500       32,000       20,500
     environment...............
    Processes and new products.         8,200       14,000        8,200
    Markets, trade, and policy.         4,600        8,000        4,600
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total, competitive              119,300      200,000      119,300
       research grants.........
                                ========================================
Animal health and disease (sec.         5,109        4,775        5,109
 1433).........................
Critical Agricultural Materials           600   ...........         650
 Act...........................
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)         4,000        4,000        4,000
Alternative crops..............           750   ...........         550
Sustainable agriculture........         8,000        8,500        8,000
Capacity building grants.......         9,200        9,200        9,200
Payments to the 1994                    1,552        1,500        1,552
 institutions..................
Graduate fellowship grants.....         3,000        3,000        3,000
Institution challenge grants...         4,350        4,350        4,350
Multicultural scholars program.         1,000        1,000        1,000
Hispanic-serving institutions..         2,850        3,183        2,850
Secondary agriculture education           500   ...........         500
1994 Research Program..........  .............         667          500
Federal administration:
    Agriculture development in            564   ...........         564
     the American Pacific......
    Agriculture waste                     250   ...........         500
     utilization (West
     Virginia).................
    Alternative fuels                     218   ...........         218
     characterization
     laboratory (North Da-
     kota).....................
    Animal waste management               250   ...........         250
     (Oklahoma)................
    Biotechnology (Mississippi)  .............  ...........         500
    Center for Agricultural and           355   ...........         355
     Rural Development (Iowa)..
    Center for North American              87   ...........          87
     Studies (Texas)...........
    Cotton research (Texas)....  .............  ...........         200
    Data information system....         1,000        2,000        2,000
    Geographic information                844   ...........       1,000
     system....................
    Mariculture (North                    250   ...........         250
     Carolina).................
    Mississippi Valley State              583   ...........         583
     University................
    National Center for Peanut            300   ...........         300
     Competitiveness (Georgia).
    Office of Extramural                  310          588          310
     Programs..................
    Pay costs and FERS.........         1,100        1,100        1,100
    Peer panels................           350          350          350
    PM-10 study (California,              873   ...........         873
     Washington)...............
    Shrimp aquaculture (Hawaii,         3,354   ...........       3,354
     Mississippi, Arizona,
     Massachusetts, South
     Carolina).................
    Water quality (Illinois)...  .............  ...........         436
    Water quality (North         .............  ...........         436
     Dakota)...................
                                ----------------------------------------
        Total, Federal                 10,688        4,038       13,666
         administration........
                                ========================================
        Total, Cooperative            481,216      468,965      474,377
         State Research,
         Education, and
         Extension Service,
         research and education
         activi-  ties.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under ``Integrated activities'' account.

    Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial 
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch 
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and 
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends 
maintaining Hatch Act funding at the fiscal year 1999 level.
    Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $54,276,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $592,000 provided for 
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for 
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture 
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical 
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agriculture and 
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and 
Extension Center in Stoneville.
    Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to 
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are 
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds 
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato 
industry working group.
    Wood utilization research.--The Committee provides 
$5,261,000 for wood utilization research and expects each 
existing center to be maintained at its fiscal year 1999 
funding level. An increase of $125,000 is provided from the 
fiscal year 1999 level to establish a new center in Alaska.
    Aquaculture centers.--The Committee provides $4,000,000, 
the same as the 1999 level, to support the regional aquaculture 
centers.
    Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 level of 
$119,300,000.
    The Committee remains determined to see that quality 
research and enhanced human resources development in the 
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. 
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that 10 
percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for a 
USDA experimental program to stimulate competitive research 
[USDA-EPSCoR].
    The Committee recognizes the important contributions that 
economics research makes to generating new knowledge about, and 
enhancing the efficiency of, our food and agriculture system. 
The Department should consider expanding its support for 
economics research in the National Research Initiative.
    Alternative crops.--The Committee recommends $550,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue research on canola.
    Sustainable agriculture.--The Committee recommends 
$8,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the 1999 
level.
    Higher education.--The Committee recommends $11,200,000 for 
higher education. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for 
graduate fellowships; $4,350,000 for challenge grants; 
$1,000,000 for multicultural scholarships; and $2,850,000 for 
grants for Hispanic education partnership grants. Of the funds 
appropriated for the Challenge Grants Program, the Committee 
directs that funds be made available to support the continued 
operation of the Food and Agricultural Education Information 
System [FAEIS].
    Federal administration.--The Committee provides $13,666,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000, an increase of $156,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 level, for the Geographic Information System Program. 
The Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made 
available for program activities of entities in the same areas 
as in 1999 on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected 
that program management costs will be kept at a minimum and any 
remaining funds will be distributed to the sites.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................    ($4,600,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     (4,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................     (4,600,000)

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (30 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal 
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of 
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted 
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these 
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being 
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the 
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the 
1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee recommends $4,600,000. This is the same as the budget 
request and the 1999 level.

                          extension activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $437,987,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \1\ 401,603,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 421,620,000

\1\ Excludes funds proposed under the ``Integrated activities'' account.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $421,620,000. This amount is $16,367,000 less 
than the 1999 appropriation and $20,017,000 more than the 
budget estimate.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities as compared to the 
fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    1999     Fiscal year     Committee
                                  enacted    2000 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and       276,548      257,753        276,548
 3(c).........................
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety...............        3,000  ...........          3,000
    Food and nutrition               58,695       61,043         58,695
     education................
    Food safety...............        7,365      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ )
    Indian reservation agents.        1,714        5,000          1,714
    Pest management...........       10,783       12,269         10,783
    Pesticide applicator        ...........        1,500  ..............
     training.................
    Pesticide impact                  3,214      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ )
     assessment...............
    Rural development centers.          908          908            908
    Sustainable agriculture...        3,309        3,309          3,309
    Water quality.............        9,561      ( \1\ )        ( \1\ )
    Youth at risk.............        9,000       10,000          9,000
Renewable Resources Extension         3,192        3,192          3,192
 Act..........................
1890 colleges and Tuskegee....       25,843       25,090         25,843
1890's facilities grants......        8,426       12,000         12,000
Rural health and safety               2,628  ...........          2,628
 education....................
Extension services at the 1994        2,060        3,500          3,060
 institutions.................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................      426,246      395,564        410,680
                               =========================================
Federal administration and
 special grants:
    General administration....        4,787        5,563          4,787
    Ag in the Classroom.......          208          476            208
    Beef producers improvement          197  ...........            197
     (Arkansas)...............
    Botanical garden            ...........  ...........            150
     initiative (Illinois)....
    Conservation technology     ...........  ...........            235
     transfer (Wisconsin).....
    Delta Teachers Academy....        3,500  ...........          3,500
    Diabetes detection                  550  ...........  ..............
     (Washington).............
    Extension specialist                 99  ...........  ..............
     (Arkansas)...............
    Extension specialist                100  ...........            119
     (Mississippi)............
    Income enhancement                  246  ...........  ..............
     demonstration (Ohio).....
    Integrated cow/calf                 300  ...........  ..............
     management (Iowa)........
    National Center for                 195  ...........            195
     Agriculture Safety (Iowa)
    Pilot technology project            163  ...........  ..............
     (Wisconsin)..............
    Pilot technology transfer           326  ...........            326
     (Oklahoma and
     Mississippi).............
    Range improvement (New              197  ...........            197
     Mexico)..................
    Rural development (Alaska)  ...........  ...........            350
    Rural development (New              280  ...........            280
     Mexico)..................
    Rural development                   150  ...........            150
     (Oklahoma)...............
    Rural rehabilitation                246  ...........            246
     (Georgia)................
    Wood biomass as an                  197  ...........  ..............
     alternative farm product
     (New York)...............
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Federal            11,741        6,039         10,940
         administration.......
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total, extension            437,987      401,603        421,620
         activities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under ``Integrated activities'' account.

    Farm safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 level of 
$2,055,000 for the AgrAbility project being carried out in 
cooperation with the National Easter Seal Society.
    Pest management.--Included in the amount provided by the 
Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is 
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for potato late 
blight control, including $400,000 for early disease 
identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and 
late blight research activities in Maine.
    Rural health and safety.--The Committee recommends 
$2,628,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 level, for rural 
health and safety education. Included in this amount is 
$2,150,000 for the ongoing rural health program in Mississippi 
to train health care professionals to serve in rural areas, and 
$478,000 for the ongoing rural health and outreach initiative 
in Louisiana.

                         integrated activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $72,844,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,541,000

    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 Lever 3(d) programs previously shown 
under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are 
proposed under this account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For integrated activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $35,541,000. This amount is $37,303,000 less than 
the budget request. There was no appropriation for this account 
for fiscal year 1999.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

    COOPERATIVE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
                          INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year     Committee
                                    1999     2000 budget  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Farm Initiatives........  ...........        4,000  ..............
Water Quality.................      ( \1\ )       16,204         13,000
Food Safety...................      ( \1\ )       15,000         15,000
Pesticide Impact Assessment...      ( \1\ )        4,640          4,541
Crops at Risk from FQPA         ...........        3,000  ..............
 Implementation...............
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program    ...........       10,000  ..............
 for Major Food Crop Systems..
Methyl Bromide Transition       ...........        5,000          3,000
 Program......................
Food Recovery and Gleaning....  ...........       15,000  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, Integrated             ( \1\ )       72,844         35,541
       Activities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1999 under research and education, and
  extension activities.

    Water quality.--The Committee expects a continuation of 
funding at current levels for the Agricultural Systems for 
Environmental Quality Program and the Management Systems 
Evaluation Area Program. The Committee continues funding for 
the Farm*A*Syst program at no less than the fiscal year 1999 
level.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $618,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         641,000
Committee recommendation................................         618,000

    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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $618,000. This is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000 
less than the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, APHIS
                                                           Appropriations     User fees \1\      appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................       $337,803,000      ($88,000,000)     ($425,803,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\..............................        340,445,000       (95,000,000)      (435,445,000)
Committee recommendation...............................        347,445,000       (90,000,000)      (437,445,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct
  appropriation.
\2\ Excludes an additional $9,077,000 in collections from proposed user fees.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of 
$437,445,000. This is $11,642,000 more than the 1999 
appropriation and $2,000,000 more than the budget request. The 
Committee does not assume the $9,077,000 in total savings from 
new user fees proposed in the budget.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                    1999     2000 budget     Committee
                                  enacted      request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine          30,648       34,576         32,519
     inspection...............
    User fees \1\.............       88,000       95,000         90,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, agricultural        118,648      129,576        122,519
       quarantine inspection..
                               -----------------------------------------
    Cattle ticks..............        4,627        4,627          4,627
    Foot-and-mouth disease....        3,803        3,803          3,803
    Fruit fly exclusion and          22,970       25,204         22,970
     detection................
    Import-export inspection..        6,815        7,166          6,815
    Sanitary/Phytosanitary            7,539        8,262          7,539
     Management...............
    Screwworm.................       30,301       30,301         30,301
    Tropical bont tick........          407          407            407
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and            195,110      209,346        198,981
       disease exclusion......
                               =========================================
Plant and animal health
 monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring         63,389       67,989         64,725
     and surveillance.........
    Animal and plant health           5,855        6,116          5,855
     regulatory enforcement...
    National Animal Health      ...........        1,218  ..............
     Emergency Management
     System...................
    Pest detection............        6,426        6,685          6,426
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, plant and            75,670       82,008         77,006
       animal health
       monitoring.............
                               =========================================
Pest and disease management
 programs:
    Aquaculture...............          567          567            567
    Biological control........        8,160        8,160          8,160
    Boll weevil...............       16,209        3,320         17,757
    Brucellosis eradication...       11,864        9,527         10,887
    Emerging plant pests......        1,410        3,510          3,510
    Golden nematode...........          435          580            435
    Gypsy moth................        4,366        4,366          4,366
    Imported fire ant.........        1,000  ...........  ..............
    Noxious weeds.............          424        2,129            424
    Pink bollworm.............        1,048        1,048          1,500
    Pseudorabies..............        4,567        4,567          4,567
    Scrapie...................        2,991        2,991          2,991
    Tuberculosis..............        4,920        4,920          4,920
    Wildlife services                29,997       28,161         31,172
     operations...............
    Witchweed.................        1,506        1,506          1,506
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, pest and             89,464       75,352         92,762
       disease management.....
                               =========================================
Animal care:
    Animal welfare............        9,175        9,690         11,175
    Horse protection..........          361          384            361
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, animal care...        9,536       10,074         11,536
                               =========================================
Scientific and technical
 services:
    Biotechnology/                    7,393        9,054          8,530
     environmental protection.
    Integrated systems                3,500        3,696          3,500
     acquisition..............
    Plant methods development         4,693        4,693          4,693
     laboratories.............
    Veterinary biologics......       10,345       10,555         10,345
    Veterinary diagnostics....       15,622       16,973         15,622
    Wildlife services methods        10,365        9,589         10,365
     development..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, scientific and       51,918       54,560         53,055
       technical services.....
                               =========================================
Contingency fund..............        4,105        4,105          4,105
                               =========================================
      Total, salaries and           425,803      435,445        437,445
       expenses...............
                               =========================================
Recap:
    Appropriated..............      337,803      340,445        347,445
    Agricultural quarantine          88,000       95,000         90,000
     inspection user fees.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agricultural
  Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct appropriations.

    Agricultural quarantine inspection [AQI].--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act (Public Law 104-
127) makes amounts in excess of D100/$100,000,000 in the AQI 
user fee account directly available for program operations. 
Amounts collected in the user fee account up to 
D100/$100,000,000 are subject to appropriation. The Committee 
provides $90,000,000 from the AQI user fee account. The 
Department estimates that an additional $48,377,000 will be 
collected and available as provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law 
104-127). The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$1,871,000 to provide additional inspectors at the U.S./
Canadian border, the U.S./Mexican border, and to increase 
Hawaii predeparture staffing based on pest risk analysis.
    Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Committee urges the 
Department to actively seek procedural and/or treatment methods 
that allow shipment of untreated fruit grown in Hawaii to cold-
weather states during winter months without jeopardizing pest 
introductions to mainland agriculture.
    The Committee does not provide the proposed increases for 
the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, the import/
export program, or the sanitary/phytosanitary management 
programs. If additional funding is needed the agency should use 
contingency funds for the fruit fly exclusion and detection 
program.
    The Committee continues its interest in having more 
efficient and less disruptive inspection of passengers and 
cargo in Hawaiian airports, and directs the agency to provide 
not less than the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for 
sufficient staff-year equivalents of agricultural quarantine 
inspectors, operating funds, and inspection equipment at 
Hawaii's direct departure and interline airports. The Committee 
also recognizes the need for innovative and cost-effective 
approaches to pre-clearance baggage inspection at Hawaii's 
direct departure and interline airports and directs the agency 
to test and evaluate new inspection technologies and other 
methods and hiring arrangements for conducting pre-clearance 
baggage inspections at Hawaiian airports. The agency is 
instructed to report to the Committee by January 31, 2000 on 
progress made with these activities.
    The Committee is also interested in APHIS's activities 
regarding the acquisition and deployment of state-of-the-art 
inspection technology and equipment at key points of entry, 
such as Hawaii, for screening passengers' luggage for banned 
agricultural pests and diseases coming into the United States. 
The Committee is concerned that equipment and technology 
purchases be commercially available and be evaluated by APHIS 
to provide the greatest overall advantage in terms of cost, 
capability, safety, efficiency and reliability. The agency is 
further instructed to report to the Committee on these 
activities and related expenditures by January 31, 2000.
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance.--The Committee 
provides funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for enforcement 
of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the national 
poultry improvement plan [NPIP] and increases funding by 
$136,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level of $240,000 to 
continue this program.
    The Committee does not provide funding in fiscal year 2000 
for the Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM).
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the new certification 
and control program for Johnes Disease as proposed in the 
budget.
    The Committee does not provide funding for the national 
health emergency management system program.
    Pest Surveillance and detection.--The Committee includes 
bill language for those producers whose wheat crops were 
infested by karnal bunt and government actions were taken 
involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or 
disposal of this wheat and provides for the timely compensation 
of economic losses.
    Biological control.--The Committee is concerned about the 
introduction of alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, 
into Hawaii. These pests have caused serious threats to 
pastures and watersheds. The Committee directs the agency to 
work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Natural 
Resources and Conservation Service to develop an integrated 
approach, including environmentally-safe biological controls, 
for eradicating these pests.
    Boll weevil.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,548,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the Boll Weevil 
Eradication Program. The Committee urges the agency to continue 
the development of the geographic information system so that 
the economic and entomological efficiency of the boll weevil 
eradication program can continue to improve. The technology 
developed through this system will be transferred to cotton 
production regions as the program expands, reducing overall 
program costs. The Committee can not provide an increase to 
achieve the 30 percent Federal cost share under the current 
budget constraints. However, the Committee intends that the 
additional funds provided be used to increase the Federal cost 
share to the maximum extent possible.
    The Committee recognizes that referenda have been passed by 
New Mexico cotton producers in the Mesilla Valley and Luna 
County to create boll weevil control districts. The Committee 
encourages the agency to continue to provide monitoring and 
technical assistance as needed for boll weevil detection and 
eradication in New Mexico.
    Brucellosis eradication.--The Committee assumes the 
decreases in the proposed budget for brucellosis eradication. 
However, the Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for the 
State of Montana to protect the State's brucellosis-free status 
and for the operation of the bison quarantine facility and the 
testing of bison which have left Yellowstone National Park.
    The Committee also provides an increase of $610,000 from 
the 1999 fiscal year level for the Greater Yellowstone 
Interagency Brucellosis Committee [GYIBC] and encourages the 
coordination of Federal, state and private actions aimed at 
eliminating Brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area.
    Emerging plant pests.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $2,100,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand the 
Asian longhorned beetle program in New York and Illinois.
    The Committee encourages the agency to explore cooperative 
efforts with the University of Vermont regarding research to 
isolate a pathogenic fungi for use as a pesticide to combat the 
Asian long horned beetle.
    Noxious weeds.--The Committee continues the demonstration 
project on kudzu at the fiscal year 1999 funding level.
    The Committee encourages the agency to continue working 
with the State of Texas regarding orobanche ramosa at the 
fiscal year 1999 level.
    The Committee does not provide the increases in support of 
the Presidential Executive Order on Invasive Alien Species 
proposed in the budget.
    Pink bollworm.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$452,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the sterile fly 
release to continue the San Joaquin Valley containment program 
and to initiate an eradication program in five counties in 
Arizona.
    Wildlife services operations.--Funding at the fiscal year 
1999 level is provided to continue cattail management and 
blackbird control efforts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Louisiana.
    The Committee notes the important and unique features of 
State and local cooperator activities in the implementation of 
wildlife services operations and disagrees with the 
Department's recommendation to impose higher cost share 
requirements on cooperating entities. The Committee encourages 
continued cost sharing of control activities to the maximum 
extent possible in all States.
    The Committee does not include the requested increase for 
the agency to cooperate with the Federal Aviation 
Administration and local airports to reduce wildlife strike 
hazards.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the operation 
of a State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-
site coordination of prevention and control activities in 
Hawaii and the American Pacific. The Committee also provides 
$400,000 specifically for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture 
to work with all agencies on a coordinated brown tree snake 
prevention and detection program for Hawaii.
    With the reintroduction of the wolf to the State of 
Montana, the State's wildlife service operations account has 
suffered financially. The Committee provides $250,000 for 
coyote and wolf control programs for livestock operators in 
Montana.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 
level to maintain the Wildlife Services office in Vermont and 
maintains the fiscal year 1999 funding level for the Vermont 
oral rabies vaccination program.
    Significant progress has been made in reducing the number 
of catfish eaten by fish-eating birds in the Mid-south. 
However, efforts by the Department have been thwarted with the 
increased number of birds migrating to areas where catfish 
ponds prominently exist. The Committee provides an additional 
$100,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to reduce damages and 
manage populations of fish-eating birds which prey on farm-
raised catfish in the Mid-south area.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level for the 
continuation of the National Trap Testing Program.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 funding level 
to support the training of wildlife biologists for the Berryman 
Institute.
    The Committee provides an increase of $125,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 level to expand the coyote control program for 
sheep operators in West Virginia. Predators have been the 
primary obstacle to sheep production in the State.
    The Committee is encouraged by the agency's assistance in 
the local-federal partnership aimed at reducing damages to 
cropland and forests caused by beaver populations. Also, the 
Committee is encouraged by the cooperative relationships for 
beaver management between the Delta National Forest and the 
agency. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 
level for these programs.
    Grasshopper/Mormon cricket control.--The Committee 
recognizes the seriousness of grasshopper population control to 
the health of both rangeland and crop production in Western 
States. The Committee expects the agency to use contingency 
funds should a severe outbreak occur and the need arise to 
manage the western grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations.
    Animal welfare.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$2,000,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the Animal Care 
Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. These funds 
should be used to increase the number of field inspectors and 
to conduct follow-up inspections for non-compliance.
    The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized 
animal welfare inspection user fees as proposed in the 
President's budget.
    The Committee directs the agency not to increase funding 
and not to expand the licensing and regulations for Animal Care 
to license and regulate persons currently exempt from its 
licensing and regulatory requirements who breed and raise dogs 
and/or cats on their own residential property and sell these 
dogs and/or cats at retail directly to persons who purchase 
them for their own use and enjoyment. The Committee does not 
believe that such an expansion in regulation is necessary to 
protect the welfare of the animals involved, nor that APHIS has 
the capacity to carry out such an expansion in regulation 
without undermining the effectiveness of its regulation of 
current licensees.
    The Committee notes that APHIS has published regulations 
implementing the Animal Welfare Act which bans tethering of 
dogs, a practice common in Alaska and other locations that use 
sled dogs for transportation. A recent study conducted at 
Cornell University indicates that tethering, done properly, is 
far superior to caging dogs which leads to aggressive behavior, 
prevents socialization, and causes health problems from lack of 
exercise. In light of this new information, the Committee 
directs the agency to reevaluate its regulations on tethering 
and report to the Committee on its conclusions no later than 
March 1, 2000.
    Biotechnology/environmental protection.--The Committee does 
not assume collections from the biotechnology user fees 
proposed in the President's budget.
    The Committee provides an increase of $1,137,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 level for the National Monitoring and Residue 
Analysis Laboratory (NMRAL) located in Gulfport, MS. The 
Committee encourages the agency to work with NMRAL in securing 
payments in a timely manner for contract work done for USDA 
agencies.
    Wildlife services methods development.--The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the Monell 
Chemical Senses Center located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1999 
level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture 
Research Center, formerly known as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' 
Association, for rodent control in sugarcane and macadamia nut 
crops.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, APHIS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs and activities 
without prior notification to and approval by the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless otherwise 
directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service shall 
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $7,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       7,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,200,000

    The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and facilities'' 
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of 
specific program activities and recurring construction, 
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing 
APHIS facilities. Due to funding constraints, the Committee 
defers funding for requested construction projects.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
1999 and budget request levels:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year
                               Fiscal year   2000 budget     Committee
                              1999 enacted     request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and                 1,000         4,000          4,000
 facilities repairs,
 alterations, and
 preventative maintenance...
Plum Island, NY.............        3,200         3,200          3,200
NWRC, Ft. Collins, CO.......        3,500   ............  ..............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, Buildings and          7,700         7,200          7,200
       Facilities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $7,200,000. This amount is $500,000 less than the 1999 level 
and the same as the budget request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $48,831,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      60,182,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,229,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$51,229,000. This amount is $2,398,000 more than the 1999 
appropriation and $8,953,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee understands that fiscal year 1999 funding 
provided to the Agricultural Marketing Service for the 
President's Food Safety Initiative for a microbiological data 
program was redirected to the Pesticide Data Program and is 
designated in the fiscal year 2000 budget as a fiscal year 1999 
Food Safety Initiative activity. The Committee provides an 
additional $2,398,000, as proposed in the budget, for the 
Pesticide Data Program.
    The Committee recognizes the important role of the 
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) in collecting scientifically and 
statistically valid pesticide residue data in food products 
sampled at or near the point of consumer purchase. Enactment of 
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996 has magnified 
the value of the PDP, as its data and results are now essential 
in the FQPA-mandated reassessment of tolerances for pesticide 
residues in foods, and in the development of more accurate risk 
assessments. The PDP is an effective tool in maintaining 
regulatory support for critical pesticides that are necessary 
to produce safe and affordable food and fiber, as well as 
provide critical public health protection. This important 
program benefits farmers, food processors, and consumers alike.
    The Committee is aware of the recently-announced Pacific 
Salmon Treaty with Canada and of the adverse impact this 
agreement may have on salmon fishermen in Alaska. The Committee 
expects the Agricultural Marketing Service to work with the 
affected parties to develop an aggressive marketing strategy to 
avoid these potential adverse consequences.
    The Committee continues to recognize the importance of 
organic markets for small farmers and fishermen. The Committee 
expects the Secretary to construct a national organic program 
that takes into consideration the needs of small farmers and 
fishermen. Therefore, the Committee expects the Secretary to 
consider and submit a report to the Committee on the 
establishment of a progressive user fee program so that small 
farmers and fishermen, handlers, and certification agents are 
not excessively burdened. Furthermore, the Committee expects 
that of the funding available for the National Organic Program, 
necessary funds should be used to offset the initial costs of 
accreditation services, a subsidy necessary due to the lack of 
expertise in the Department of Agriculture in the areas of 
organic accreditation and insufficient data on the industry.
    The Committee is aware of proposals for the improvement of 
the Montgomery, Alabama, State Farmers' Market and proposals to 
provide outreach to small and medium-sized minority farmers in 
the State. The Committee encourages the Department to consider 
applications from the State of Alabama to fund these projects.
    The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program 
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and 
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and 
expects the Department to give full consideration to funding 
applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program.

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 1999........................................   ($60,730,000)
Budget limitation, 2000.................................    (60,730,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (60,730,000)

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $60,730,000. 
This amount is the same as the 1999 level and the budget 
request.

          funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply

                              (section 32)

                    marketing agreements and orders

Appropriations, 1999....................................   ($10,998,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    (12,443,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (12,443,000)

    Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts 
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused 
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption 
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is 
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers 
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition 
Service have been provided in recent appropriation acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1998-2000:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               1999 current       2000 current
                                                             1998 actual         estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs re-  ceipts).......    $5,730,107,608  \1\ $5,701,865,817    $5,735,557,955
Less transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service..........................    -5,151,391,000      -5,048,150,000    -4,935,199,000
    Commerce Department.................................       -65,734,190         -66,426,288       -69,920,523
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers..................................    -5,217,125,190      -5,114,576,288    -5,005,119,523
                                                         =======================================================
Budget authority........................................       512,982,418     \1\ 587,289,529       730,438,432
Unobligated balance available, start of year............       233,868,235         131,966,602       105,588,209
Recoveries of prior-year obligations....................        11,455,285  ..................  ................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
Available for obligation................................       758,305,938     \1\ 719,256,131       836,026,641
                                                         =======================================================
Less obligations:
    Commodity procurement:
        Child nutrition purchases.......................       400,000,000         400,000,000       400,000,000
        Emergency surplus removal.......................       194,774,097         141,800,922       115,000,000
        Diversion payments..............................  ................          54,000,000  ................
        Disaster relief.................................        15,200,000  ..................  ................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, commodity procurement..................       609,974,097         595,800,922       515,000,000
                                                         =======================================================
    Administrative funds:
        Commodity Purchase Service......................         6,175,767           6,869,000         8,584,000
        Marketing agreements and orders.................        10,189,472          10,998,000        12,443,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, administrative funds...................        16,365,239          17,867,000        21,027,000
                                                         =======================================================
          Total, obligations............................       626,339,336         613,667,922       536,027,000
                                                         =======================================================
Carryout................................................       131,966,602         105,588,209       299,999,641
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Unobligated balance available, end of year........       131,966,602         105,588,209       299,999,641
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $145,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $12,443,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is the same as the 
budget estimate and $1,445,000 more than the 1999 level.
    In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent 
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The 
Committee expects the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to 
continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon and 
salmon nuggets and determine whether or not there is a surplus 
and continued low prices in fiscal year 2000. If there is 
surplus salmon and continued low prices in fiscal year 2000, 
the Committee expects the Department to purchase surplus salmon 
for use in the aforementioned feeding programs or for 
humanitarian food aid.

                   payments to states and possessions

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $1,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       1,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,200,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State 
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides 
$1,200,000. This amount is the same as the budget request and 
the 1999 appropriation.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $26,787,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      26,448,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,287,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers 
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $24,287,000. This amount is $2,161,000 less 
than the budget request and $2,500,000 less than the 1999 
level.
    The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included one-time 
funding of $2,500,000 for costs associated with the 
reorganization of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration. The Committee's recommendation reflects the 
elimination of this one-time funding increase. The Committee 
does not assume the $14,787,000 in net savings from collections 
from new user fees proposed in the budget.

        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

Limitation, 1999........................................   ($42,557,000)
Budget limitation, 2000.................................    (42,557,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (42,557,000)

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a $42,557,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the budget estimate and the 1999 level.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $446,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         469,000
Committee recommendation................................         446,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $446,000. This amount 
is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000 less than the budget 
request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $616,986,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     652,955,000
Committee recommendation................................     638,404,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $638,404,000. This amount is 
$21,418,000 more than the 1999 level and $14,551,000 less than 
the budget request.
    The Committee has provided for mandatory pay costs 
associated with Federal Food Inspection Activities. The 
Committee has also provided an additional $2,900,000, the full 
amount requested, for the FSIS portion of the food safety 
initiative.
    The budget request includes increases totaling $10,769,000 
for Consumer Safety Officers. These costs include conversion 
and relocation of existing employees and hiring new staff. Due 
to funding constraints, the Committee does not provide for the 
conversion or hiring of these employees. Further, the Committee 
understands that litigation has been filed against the 
Department to maintain carcass-by-carcass inspection. 
Therefore, the Committee has deferred action on this issue 
pending resolution of the lawsuit.
    The Committee expects imported meat and poultry products 
entering the United States to be safe and comply with the same 
requirements that the United States imposes on domestic 
processors. Current law requires the Secretary to annually 
certify that foreign plants exporting meat and poultry products 
to the United States have inspection requirements that achieve 
a level of sanitary protection equivalent to that achieved 
under United States standards. The United States is a major 
exporter of meat and poultry products and benefits from its 
ability to demonstrate equivalence of its inspection system in 
gaining access to foreign markets. Nonetheless, the Committee 
directs the Secretary to aggressively review exporting plants' 
sanitary measures and inspection processes to verify that they 
provide U.S. consumers with a level of protection equivalent to 
U.S. standards. The Committee expects the Department to submit 
quarterly reports to the Committee on its activities to comply 
with current law, including its evaluation of HACCP plans and 
salmonella testing in foreign plants.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2000 budget       Committee
                                                                1999 estimates      request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal food inspection......................................         $514,920         $545,578         $533,895
Import/export inspection.....................................           12,097           12,566           12,108
Laboratory services..........................................           36,060           39,856           38,492
Field automation.............................................            8,023            8,023            8,023
Grants to States.............................................           40,655           41,701           40,655
Special assistance for State programs........................            5,231            5,231            5,231
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          616,986          652,955          638,404
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $572,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         595,000
Committee recommendation................................         572,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $572,000. This amount is the same as the 1999 
appropriation and $23,000 less than the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the 
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers 
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs 
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse 
examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], 
and several other cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and 
operating, and emergency disaster and other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the 
Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the 
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production 
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant's 
prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well 
as total program participation, each contract participant 
shares a portion of a statutorily specified, annual dollar 
amount. In return, participants must comply with certain 
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection, 
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for 
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, 
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production 
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for 
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
    Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, 
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 act provides for 
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract 
commodities, extra long staple [ELS] cotton, and oilseeds for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, 
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment 
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus 
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. However, with 
respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary must allow repayment 
of marketing loans at the adjusted world price. And, 
specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance 
loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the 
lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest, 
or the adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness 
provisions are unchanged, except that the total expenditures 
under step 2 during fiscal years 1996 through 2002 cannot 
exceed $701,000,000. Producers have the option of taking a loan 
deficiency payment, if available, in lieu of the marketing 
assistance loan. The $701,000,000 available for step 2 payments 
has been fully spent.
    The 1996 act also provides for a loan program for sugar for 
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where 
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature 
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of 
sugar. The 1996 act provides for a milk price support program, 
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31, 
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35 
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per 
hundredweight in 1999. Beginning January 1, 2000, the 1996 act 
provides a recourse loan program for commercial processors of 
dairy products. The 1996 act and the 1938 act provide for a 
peanut loan and poundage quota program for the 1996 through 
2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949, 
as amended (1949 act), and the 1938 act provide for a price 
support, quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than 
CCC's cost of money for that month.
    The 1996 act amended the payment limitation provisions in 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act), by 
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for 
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment 
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000 
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan 
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was 
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues 
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the three entity rule is 
continued.
    Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various 
price support and related programs have been authorized in 
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's. 
Operations under these programs are financed through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the 
Farm Service Agency are utilized in the administration of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the 
Agency is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
    The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address 
high-priority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC 
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of 
the programs financed through CCC.
    Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities 
are conducted pursuant to specific statutory authorizations and 
directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and 
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these 
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its 
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as 
Public Law 480.
    Farm credit programs.--FSA reviews applications, makes and 
collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance 
to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs 
associated with agricultural credit insurance fund [ACIF] loans 
are appropriated to the ACIF program account and transferred to 
FSA salaries and expenses.
    Risk management.--FSA administers the noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP] which provides crop loss 
protection for growers of many crops for which crop insurance 
is not available.

                         salaries and expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total, FSA,
                                                            Appropriations    Transfers from      salaries and
                                                                             program accounts       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.....................................  \1\ $714,499,000    ($211,265,000)  \1\ ($925,764,000
                                                                                                               )
Budget estimate, 2000....................................       794,839,000     (211,378,000)    (1,006,217,000)
Committee recommendation.................................       794,839,000     (211,265,000)    (1,006,104,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $40,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 105-277 and $42,753,000
  provided by Public Law 106-31.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, 
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the 
Committee recommends $1,006,104,000. This is $80,340,000 more 
than the 1999 level and $113,000 less than the budget request. 
The Committee has provided direct appropriations for salaries 
and expenses of the Farm Service Agency at the level proposed 
by the President.
    The Committee notes that seafood is not one of the 
agricultural commodities which is currently eligible for the 
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program even though crop 
insurance is not currently available when there is a failure. 
The Committee directs the Department to evaluate the 
feasibility and cost of including seafood in this program and 
report back to the Committee no later than March 15, 2000.
    The budget identifies the availability of funds for 
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee 
directs that available funds be used to meet increased 
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.

                         state mediation grants

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for State mediation 
grants. This is the same as the amount provided in 1999 and 
$2,000,000 less than the budget request.

                        dairy indemnity program

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $450,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         450,000
Committee recommendation................................         450,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends 
$450,000. This is the same as the budget request and the 1999 
level.

           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and 
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types 
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, 
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The 
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an 
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a 
specified initial period.
    FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to 
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having 
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The following programs are financed through this fund:
    Farm ownership loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $700,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40 
years or less.
    Farm operating loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $700,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan 
varies from 1 to 7 years.
    Emergency disaster loans.--Made available in designated 
areas (counties) and in contiguous counties where property 
damage and/or severe production losses have occurred as a 
direct result of a natural disaster. Areas may be declared by 
the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by 
the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.
    Credit sales of acquired property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 
loans.
    Indian tribe land acquisition loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire 
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or 
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the 
members thereof.
    Boll weevil eradication loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of 
$3,083,292,000. This is $74,558,000 more than the budget 
request and $798,334,000 more than the 1999 level.
    The following table reflects the program levels for farm 
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to 1999 and the 
budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                   1999 enacted     2000 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct......................................................    \1\ (85,651)       (128,049)       (128,049)
    Guaranteed..................................................   \2\ (425,031)       (431,373)       (431,373)
Farm operating:
    Direct......................................................   \3\ (500,000)       (500,000)       (500,000)
    Guaranteed unsubsidized.....................................   \4\ (948,276)     (1,697,842)     (1,697,842)
    Guaranteed subsidized.......................................   \5\ (200,000)        (97,442)       (200,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................         (1,000)         (1,028)         (1,028)
Emergency disaster..............................................    \6\ (25,000)        (53,000)        (25,000)
Boll weevil eradication loans...................................       (100,000)       (100,000)       (100,000)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................  \7\ (2,284,958     (3,008,734)     (3,083,292)
                                                                               )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $200,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $350,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 106-31.
\3\ Excludes estimated $233,806,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $185,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
  subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
\4\ Excludes estimated $150,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 105-277.
\5\ Excludes estimated $156,704,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $185,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
  subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
\6\ Excludes estimated $175,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 106-31.
\7\ Excludes estimated $540,510,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
  provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $1,095,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
  subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.

           loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                         Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Insured     Guaranteed                               Transfer to
                                     loan         loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA       Total ACIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...........       54,465       35,238   \1\ 89,703     \2\ 10,000       209,861  \2\ 219,861
Budget estimate, 2000..........       42,379       34,941       77,320          4,300       209,861      214,161
Committee recommendation.......       42,379       39,627       82,006          4,300       209,861      214,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $137,014,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 105-277 and
  Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $4,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                   1999 enacted     2000 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct..................................................      \1\ 12,822           4,827           4,827
        Guaranteed..............................................       \2\ 6,758           2,416           2,416
    Farm operating:
        Direct..................................................      \3\ 34,150          29,300          29,300
        Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................      \4\ 11,000          23,940          23,940
        Guaranteed subsidized...................................      \5\ 17,480           8,585          17,620
    Indian tribe land acquisition...............................             153              21              21
    Emergency disaster..........................................       \6\ 5,900           8,231           3,882
    Boll weevil eradication loans...............................           1,440         ( \9\ )         ( \9\ )
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies...................................      \7\ 89,703          77,320          82,006
ACIF expenses...................................................     \8\ 219,861         214,161         214,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $29,940,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\2\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $5,565,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\3\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $15,969,000 (Public Law 105-277), and $12,635,000
  (Public Law 106-31).
\4\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $1,740,000 (Public Law 105-277).
\5\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $13,696,000 (Public Law 105-277) and $16,169,000
  (Public Law 106-31).
\6\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $41,300,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\7\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $31,405,000 (Public Law 105-277) and $105,609,000
  (Public Law 106-31).
\8\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $4,000,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\9\ No cost since subsidy rate is negative.

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      70,716,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,000,000

    Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] 
Act of 1996, risk management activities previously performed by 
the Farm Service Agency will be performed by the new Risk 
Management Agency.
    Risk management includes program activities in support of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Program as authorized by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act. Functional areas 
of risk management are: research and development; insurance 
services; and compliance, whose functions include policy 
formulation and procedures and regulations development. Reviews 
and evaluations are conducted for overall performance to ensure 
the actuarial soundness of the insurance program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk 
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$64,000,000. This is $6,716,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the 1999 level.
    The Committee is pleased that the agency is currently 
conducting a test program to determine the feasibility of 
including catfish within the Federal Crop Insurance Program. It 
directs the agency to conduct the necessary analysis to 
determine whether salmon would meet the actuarial soundness 
requirement needed to conduct a similar test program. The 
Committee expects the report to be completed by September 1, 
1999.

                        Support Services Bureau

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $74,050,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    Since 1993, the county-based agencies have been 
implementing streamlining plans to cut red tape and co-locate 
offices in the same county, with the goal of providing ``one-
stop service'' for USDA customers. The next phase involves 
converging the administrative organizations of these separate 
agencies. The Budget proposes the establishment of a new 
Support Services Bureau (SSB) account to centrally fund the 
administrative support services common to each of the county-
based agencies. This account will directly support the ongoing 
Service Center Modernization initiative. The SSB will reflect 
the combined costs of the agencies' administrative functions 
and will allow common services such as information technology, 
financial management, and human resources to be shared among 
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Rural Development (RD) 
mission area, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS).
    The SSB will be financed by a combination of direct 
appropriations and transfers from the serviced agencies. The 
establishment of a single account will provide an efficient 
mechanism to effect the necessary fund transfers to support the 
bureau.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Support Services Bureau, the Committee recommends 
no appropriation. This amount is $74,000,000 less than the 
budget request. No funds were requested for this account for 
fiscal year 1999.
    Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide the $74,000,000 requested for the Support Services 
Bureau. Under the budget proposal, administrative management 
support activities for the Farm Service Agency, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development will be 
consolidated under the Support Services Bureau. While the 
Committee supports obtaining additional efficiencies in these 
agencies and has been supportive of the Common Computing 
Environment, it expects funds to be transferred to the Support 
Services Bureau only to the extent that funds for these 
activities exist in each respective agency and only to the 
extent that the reprogramming procedures contained in this act 
are followed.

                              CORPORATIONS


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed 
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc 
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance 
program.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $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. Under the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are 
offered the option of waiving their eligibility for emergency 
crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT coverage to meet 
program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not 
include emergency loans or payment under the Noninsured 
Assistance Program [NAP]. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the 
Secretary began phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through 
the FSA offices, and in 1998 designated the private insurance 
providers as the sole source provider of CAT coverage.
    The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies 
for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may 
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy 
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for 
catastrophic risk protection coverage for coverage up to 65 
percent level at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or 
greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount 
is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 
50 percent yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected 
market price.
    The reform legislation included the NAP program for 
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance 
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of 
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop 
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad 
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was 
implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management, 
under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program will remain with 
the Farm Service Agency and be incorporated into the Commodity 
Credit Corporation program activities.

                federal crop insurance corporation fund

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................  $1,504,036,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................     997,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     997,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $69,000,000 
provided by Public Law 105-277.
\2\ The budget requests such sums as may be necessary to remain 
available until expended.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of 
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 
delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as 
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public 
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
    All program costs for 2000, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, estimated to be $997,000,000. This is $507,036,000 
less than the amount provided in 1999.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996; the 
Agricultural Act of 1949 (1949 act); the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act of 1938 (1938 act); and the Food Security Act of 
1985 (1985 act).
    The 1996 act requires that the following programs be 
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: 7-year production 
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed 
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple 
[ELS] cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for 
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The 
1996 act also requires a milk price support program that begins 
after enactment of the act and continues through December 31, 
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product 
processors.
    The 7-year production flexibility contracts were offered to 
eligible landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 1996, 
with some contracts being available in subsequent years for 
eligible contract-commodity acreage in the CRP program that, 
prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the 
contract expires. Statutorily established fixed dollar amounts 
are to be distributed annually among contract participants 
according to statutory formulas. With the exception of 
limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be 
planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract acreage 
must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract 
participants must comply with applicable land conservation and 
wetland protection requirements.
    Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of 
ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to 
producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of 
such commodities are contract participants. Marketing loan 
provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all 
such commodities except ELS cotton.
    The peanut loan program as provided by the 1996 act is 
accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the 
1938 act. The loan rate for quota peanuts is set at $610 per 
ton for each of the crop years, 1996 through 2002. The quota 
poundage floor (1.35 million tons in 1995) authorized by the 
1938 act for 1995 is eliminated for the 1996 through 2002 
crops. The 1996 act also amends the peanut provisions of the 
1938 act pertaining to undermarketings of farm quotas and 
transfers of quotas across county lines.
    The 1996 act created a recourse loan program for sugar that 
reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if 
the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million 
short tons (raw value) in any fiscal year, 1997-2002. The 1996 
act suspends marketing allotment provisions in the 1938 act and 
implements a 1-cent-per-pound penalty if cane sugar pledged as 
collateral for a Corporation loan is forfeited. A similar 
penalty applies to beet sugar.
    The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 act is 
supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by 
the 1938 act. The tobacco program provisions in both acts were 
not affected by the 1996 act.
    Milk prices are supported each year through the end of 
calendar year 1999 at statutorily established levels through 
purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar 
year 1996 support level was $10.35 per hundredweight for milk 
containing 3.67 percent butterfat, and the rate declines 
annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999. A 
recourse loan program for commercial processors of dairy 
products begins on January 1, 2000. The recourse loan rate is 
to be established for eligible dairy products at a level that 
reflects a milk equivalent value of $9.90 per hundredweight of 
milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the 
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured 
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan 
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than 
CCC's cost of money for that month. Moreover, the Corporation's 
use of funds for purchases of information technology equipment, 
including computers, is more restricted than it was prior to 
enactment of the 1996 act.
    The 1996 act amends the 1985 act to establish the 
Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program [ECARP], 
which encompasses the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], the 
Wetland Reserve Program [WRP], and the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program [EQIP]. Each of these programs is funded 
through the Corporation.
    The CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4 
million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that 
are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary 
is to allow participants to terminate any CRP contract entered 
into prior to January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided 
the contract has been in effect for at least 5 years. The 
Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future 
early outs and future sign-ups of lands that meet enrollment 
eligibility criteria.
    WRP is reauthorized through the year 2002, not to exceed 
975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996, 
one-third of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements, 
one-third in 30-year easements or less, and one-third in 
wetland restoration agreements with cost sharing; 75,000 acres 
of land in less than permanent easements must be placed in the 
program before any additional permanent easements are placed.
    A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established 
to assist crop and livestock producers deal with environmental 
and conservation improvements on the farm. The 1996 act 
authorizes program funding of $200,000,000 annually for fiscal 
years 1997 through 2002. One-half of the available funds are 
for addressing conservation problems associated with livestock 
operations and one-half for other conservation concerns. Five- 
to ten-year contracts, based on a conservation plan will be 
used to implement the program.
    The 1996 act also authorizes other new Corporation-funded 
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option, 
flood risk reduction contracts, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by 
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may 
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending 
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation 
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to 
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing 
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes, 
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation 
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 reimbursement for net realized losses

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $8,439,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................  14,368,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................  14,368,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) for net realized losses, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, 
estimated in the budget to be $14,368,000,000. This is 
$5,929,000,000 more than the amount provided for 1999. The 
Committee notes that the Department's most recent estimate of 
the fiscal year 2000 payment required to reimburse the CCC for 
net realized losses is $20,368,000,000, $6,000,000,000 higher 
than the budget estimate.

Food Security Commodity Reserve

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

       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

Limitation, 1999........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Commodity Credit Corporation operations and maintenance 
for hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a 
limitation of $5,000,000. This amount is the same as the 1999 
level and the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $693,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         721,000
Committee recommendation................................         693,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$693,000. This amount is the same as the amount provided in 
1999 and $28,000 less than the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                        conservation operations

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $641,243,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................     680,679,000
Committee recommendation................................     656,243,000

\1\ Includes a proposed transfer of $44,423,000 from ``Watershed and 
flood prevention operations''.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $656,243,000. This amount is $15,000,000 more 
than the 1999 level and $24,436,000 less than the budget 
estimate. The Committee does not assume the transfer of 
$44,423,000 from watershed and flood prevention operations as 
proposed in the budget. Also, the Committee does not provide 
funding for competitive partnership grants, the Community 
Federal Information Partnership (CFIP), or the Global Climate 
Change Initiative, as proposed by the budget.
    The budget identifies the availability of funds for 
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee 
directs that available funds be used to meet increased 
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.
    The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 level to develop partnerships between USDA and 
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to enhance the 
Foundation's participation in conservation programs and 
strengthen their fish and wildlife conservation benefits.
    The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 from the 
1999 fiscal year level for the Animal Feeding Operation (AFO).
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding to continue work on the Great Lakes Basin Program for 
soil and erosion sediment control.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 
level for the grazing lands conservation assistance program. 
The agency is to be commended for establishing a system to 
provide an accounting of funds used for this program within 
conservation operations.
    The Committee continues funding at the 1999 fiscal year 
level for the National Water Management Center in Arkansas.
    The Comittee maintains the fiscal year 1999 level for the 
Chesapeake Bay Program.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for the Sowashee Creek 
Watershed, Lauderdale County, Mississippi.
    The Committee is concerned about the introduction of alien 
weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii that has 
resulted in serious threats to pastures and watersheds. The 
Committee directs the agency to continue its work with the 
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Animal Plant and 
Health Inspection Service to develop an integrated approach, 
including environmentally-safe biological controls, for 
eradicating these pests.
    The Committee continues funding at the 1999 funding level 
for plant material centers and to continue the development of 
warm season grasses for use in the Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Initiatives Program (WHIP).
    The Committee encourages the agency to allocate the 1999 
level of funding to support the Federal-State partnership to 
address the Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog basins.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding to continue support of agricultural development and 
resource conservation in the native Hawaiian homestead 
communities on the Island of Molokai. The Committee encourages 
program transition from small-scale conservation projects to 
those benefitting the community at large.
    The Committee directs the agency to provide an increase of 
$1,000,000 for the Kenai streambank restoration water project 
in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach 
effort in order for USDA to serve small-scale Appalachian 
farmers in sustaining agriculture production, while protecting 
natural resources, and therefore, directs the agency to use 
$660,000 for the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program. 
Sound economic grazing systems, marketing strategies, and 
uniformity of production quality will ensure the 
competitiveness of livestock operations and help maintain small 
farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock 
producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance 
for Franklin County Lake, Mississippi.
    The Committee is aware of the lack of funding for the Soil 
and Water Conservation Districts in the State of Alaska. The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 level for at least one staff position for each Soil 
and Water Conservation District Office, two positions with the 
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, a public 
information program, and assistance to rural Alaska (off the 
road/rail network).
    The Committee provides an increase of $288,900 from the 
fiscal year 1999 level for agroforestry efforts in conjunction 
with the National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.
    The Committee encourages the agency to provide technical 
assistance as needed for Palmer's Crossing, Choctaw Water 
Quality Watershed, and the New Porter's Bayou watershed project 
in Mississippi.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding to implement the recommendations identified in the 
Delta Study aimed at water conservation, alternative water 
supply evaluations, and environmental planning. This funding is 
to be used to continue the implementation of the study in 
cooperation with the local sponsor.
    The Committee directs the agency to proceed with Phase I of 
the Kuhn Bay Project (Point Remove), Arkansas.
    The Committee recognizes that the Department has the 
authority to establish national priority area pilot programs 
under the guidelines of the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program [EQIP]. The Committee directs the agency to continue 
adequate funding for the two national priority area pilot 
projects designated in 1998.
    The Committee directs the agency to continue the pilot 
project in Washington, Sharkey, and Yazoo Counties, MS, to 
clarify and conclusively determine the proper classification 
and taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils in conjunction 
with soil scientists at land-grant universities in the region.
    The Committee directs the agency to be accountable for the 
funds spent on behalf of the salmon recovery efforts in the 
Pacific Northwest and report an itemized list to the Committee 
no later than January 1, 2000.
    The Committee provides the 1999 fiscal year level of 
funding for the Tri-Valley watershed, an essential part of the 
Central Utah Completion Act, for improvement to canals and to 
provide pressurized irrigation water to Wasatch and Summit 
Counties.
    The Committee provides an additional $100,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 to increase the Hawaii Plant Materials 
Center's capability to propagate native plants to support the 
Federal cleanup of the Island of Kahoolawe, and to facilitate 
the startup of native plant nurseries.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level for 
composting demonstration sites of poultry litter and wood 
products in West Virginia. The Committee supports the Federal, 
state, and local partnerships that have been created by this 
project, and the progress toward utilizing poultry litter in 
value-added production.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding to address the erosion in the Loess Hills area in 
western Iowa.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 funding level for Phase II of the Potomac and 
Ohio River basins soil nutrient project. This information is 
critical as Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading 
issues, and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from 
eutrophication, and the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf 
of Mexico from depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding for evaluating and increasing native plant materials in 
Alaska. The revegetation will be developed for commercial 
producers so that it can be used to protect and restore worn 
trails, eroded streambanks, and to prevent further ecological 
damage.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for testing emerging 
alternative technology to reduce phosphorus loading into Lake 
Champlain from agricultural runoff.
    The Committee also provides an additional $750,000 from the 
fiscal year 1999 funding level for technical assistance for the 
Seward/Resurrection River watershed project, Alaska.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding for the continued development of a geographic 
information system (GIS)-based model in South Carolina to 
integrate commodity and conservation program data at the field 
level for watershed analysis purposes.

                     watershed surveys and planning

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $10,368,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      11,732,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,368,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $10,368,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1999 appropriation and $1,364,000 less than the 
budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $99,443,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................      83,423,000
Committee recommendation................................      99,443,000

\1\ Excludes $95,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Reflects a proposed transfer of $44,423,000 from ``Watershed and 
flood prevention operations'' to ``Conservation operations''.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed and flood prevention operations, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,443,000. This 
amount is the same as the 1999 appropriation and $16,020,000 
more than the budget request.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding for the Little Sioux project in Iowa.
    The Committee encourages the agency to complete work on the 
Willow-Cravens Creek Watershed project, Missouri.
    The Committee urges the NRCS to proceed with the design of 
Phase I of the main distribution pipeline which is dedicated to 
increasing water storage capacity and improving the efficiency 
of delivery systems on the islands of Hawaii and Maui to 
mitigate persistent drought conditions and conserve water to 
support diversified agriculture activities.
    The Committee encourages the Department to assist local 
landowners with the Little Red River Watershed project in 
Arkansas and the Gallagher Creek Watershed and Squirrel Branch 
projects in Mississippi.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to restore the Lake Tahoe basin.
    The Committee is increasingly concerned by the threats to 
public safety posed by the aging system of flood control 
structures and the hardships placed on local conservation and 
flood control districts due to the Department's policy that 
rehabilitation of such facilities is considered part of the 
districts' operation and maintenance responsibilities. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide the Committee a 
detailed analysis of this problem and a strategy to provide 
comprehensive rehabilitation of endangered structures.
    The Committee urges the agency to proceed with the 
implementation of the watershed plans for the Upper Tygart 
Valley watershed, the Deckers Creek Mine Drainage and Land Mine 
Treatment Watershed project, the Potomac Headwaters Land 
Treatment Watershed project and the Knapps Creek Stream 
Restoration Watershed project.
    The Committee encourages the agency to continue assistance 
for the Colusa Basin Drainage District, the Salinas Valley 
Eastside Project Area, and the Chino Dairy Preserve Project, 
California.
    The Committee is aware of continued flooding in the Devils 
Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen 
in each of the past seven years. The lake has risen nearly 25 
feet since 1993. The Committee encourages the agency, with the 
cooperation of the Farm Service Agency, to assist in the 
locally coordinated flood response and water management 
activities being developed with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. NRCS and FSA should continue to utilize 
conservation programs in providing water holding and storage 
areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in 
watershed management.

                 resource conservation and development

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      35,265,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For resource conservation and development, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1999 level and $265,000 less than the budget 
estimate.

                      forestry incentives program

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................      $6,325,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       6,325,000

\1\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriations of 
$10,000,000 provided by Public Law 105-277.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Forestry Incentives Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1999 appropriation and $6,325,000 more than the 
budget request.

                      farmland protection program

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Farmland Protection Program is authorized by section 
388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (7 
U.S.C. 7201). Its purpose is to protect farmland from urban 
development and other nonagricultural land conversions; 
preserve farmland for future generations; maintain, restore, 
and enhance ecosystems; protect historical landscapes, scenic 
beauty, and open space; and sustain rural economic stability 
and development.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Farmland Protection Program, the Committee 
recommends no appropriation. This is $50,000,000 less than the 
budget estimate. No funds were appropriated for this program 
for fiscal year 1999. Direct funding is provided for the 
Farmland Protection Program through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation and the Committee does not believe a discretionary 
appropriation is appropriate or required to augment the 
authorized level for this program.

      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $588,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         612,000
Committee recommendation................................         588,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$588,000. This amount is $24,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the 1999 level.
    The Committee urges the Department to work closely with the 
Santiam Canyon officials and other Federal agencies to ensure 
implementation of an economic plan.
    The Committee notes the opportunities for improved farm 
income, especially among small farm operators, through 
diversification of crop production and specialized marketing 
strategies. An important element to this strategy is to afford 
producers better access to new and direct consumer markets. 
Toward this goal, the Secretary is urged to work with 
interested farm groups, cooperatives, and communities in 
utilizing the authorities of the Rural Economic and Community 
Development Agency in the development of marketing 
opportunities in urban areas and other areas where farmers may 
directly market their products to consumers.
    The Committee strongly supports farmers joining together in 
cooperative self-help efforts to move into value-added 
production and processing activities. Such cooperative 
endeavors can have a positive impact on the ability of farmers 
to improve their income and achieve financial stability, manage 
risk, compete more effectively in a global marketplace still 
characterized by subsidized foreign competition, and help 
create needed jobs in communities throughout rural America. The 
Committee believes the Department of Agriculture should give 
increased emphasis to programs aimed at encouraging such 
cooperative ventures, including strengthening funding for 
Cooperative Services' programs relating to research, education, 
and technical assistance for farmer cooperatives.
    The Committee urges the agency to consider Rural Business 
Enterprise Grant applications from within Empowerment Zone 
areas, even when the beneficiary companies may exceed the 
number of employees or gross annual revenue determinations 
currently used by the agency to define small and emerging 
businesses, particularly where the grant would allow existing 
businesses to stay within the area and expand their operation.
    The budget identifies the availability of funds for 
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee 
directs that available funds be used to meet increased 
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $722,686,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     670,103,000
Committee recommendation................................     718,006,000

\1\ Excludes $30,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 106-31.

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural 
development State directors for their priority setting on a 
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to 
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account 
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any 
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for 
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community 
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain 
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, 
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential 
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those 
providing or supporting overall community development, such as 
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic 
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational 
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve 
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of 
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue 
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the 
majority of available funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct 
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community 
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community 
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities. 
Communities that have lower population and income levels 
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed 
D100/$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 
sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, 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. 
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the 
Committee recommends $718,006,000. This amount is $47,903,000 
more than the budget request and $4,680,000 less than the 
fiscal year 1999 level.
    Community facility grants.--The Committee recognizes the 
need for a community facility grant for the construction of a 
new facility for the St. Paul Island Health Clinic in Alaska. 
The Committee encourages the Department to consider an 
application for the construction of this facility.
    Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] from 
the following: Land Stewardship Alliance; Pembroke Farming 
Cooperative, Illinois; the Grants to Broadcasting Program; 
Ninth District Development Financing, Inc., Virginia; South 
Carolina Cotton Museum, Bishopville, South Carolina; Premium 
Pork of Montana; South Dakota Value-Added Agriculture 
Development Center; West Virginia Rural Health Infrastructure 
Loan Program; Rural Economic Development Through Tourism 
(REDIT); Arkansas State University Entrepreneural and Trade 
Center; Cut Bank Tourism Information Center; Mission Valley 
Market Project; and for the small business incubator in 
Northeastern Montana.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process. The Committee expects the 
Department to ensure that the system by which applications for 
rural business enterprise grants are considered does not 
discriminate against applications which may benefit multiple 
States.
    The Committee has provided the fiscal year 1999 level of 
funding for transportation technical assistance.
    Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for the following projects: the city of Social 
Circle, GA; the Compton Mountain Water Project, VA; the 
Shulerville/Honey Hill Water project, Berkeley, South Carolina; 
the Long Park Dam in Manila, UT; Globalplex Intermodal Terminal 
Wastewater and Sewer Project, LA; Valley Park Water 
Association, Issaquena County, MS; and Vallecito Water Co., 
Colorado.
    The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up 
to $20,000,000 available for village safe water for the 
development of water systems for rural and native villages in 
Alaska, and $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems 
for the colonias along the United States-Mexico border. In 
addition, the Committee makes up to $7,300,000 available for 
the circuit rider program.
    Water and waste technical assistance training grants.--The 
Committee encourages the Department to consider applications 
for the following: Rural Sanitation Drainage Initiative, AK; 
and for new environmental wastewater treatment technology and 
centrifuge technology, HI.
    The Committee encourages the Department to support a farm 
labor service center pilot project to develop a program to help 
with recruiting, supporting and training a farm labor pool.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with 
officials of Tillamook Bay, or, to provide the needed 
infrastructure to diversify the local economy.
    Labor shortages are causing a crisis on Vermont family 
farms, particularly in the Dairy and Orchard sectors. Farmers 
are unable to recruit and retain workers in today's competitive 
labor market, and generally do not have access to migrant labor 
pools available to other regions. Economic and quality of life 
issues associated with labor shortages are forcing more 
families out of farming. The Committee directs the agency to 
establish a Farm Labor Service Center pilot project to help 
with recruiting, supporting and training a farm labor pool.
    The Committee is aware of the out-migration in rural 
counties across the country and the efforts being made through 
the Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) pilot program to 
address this problem with financial support for REAP zones, 
especially in North Dakota, from the Department. The Committee 
urges the Department to continue this support in fiscal year 
2000. In addition, the Rural Development agency, which is the 
lead agency for this program, is encouraged by the Committee to 
use out-migration as one of the allocation criteria when 
determining assistance.
    Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee commends 
the Secretary for recognizing the importance of cooperative 
businesses in rural America and encourages the Secretary to 
continue targeting these funds to rural and farmer cooperatives 
and eligible cooperative lending institutions.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  1999           2000 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
    Community facility loan subsidies: Direct.............            22,917            15,150            15,150
    Community facility grants.............................             6,869            13,237             8,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, housing...................................            29,786            28,387            23,150
                                                           =====================================================
Business:
    Business and industry loan subsidies: Guaranteed......             9,673            31,100            26,435
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            38,220            35,970            37,664
    Rural business opportunity grants.....................               500             5,000               500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            48,393            72,070            64,599
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal loan subsidies: Direct.......           129,430            63,900           105,790
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           512,761           503,000           521,467
    Solid waste management grants.........................             2,816             2,746             3,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           645,007           569,646           630,257
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           722,686           670,103           718,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Rural Housing Service


                       total appropriations level

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,269,445,000
Budget estimate, 2000..................................\1\ 1,345,735,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,310,948,000

\1\ Includes proposed fiscal year 2001 advance appropriation of 
$200,000,000.

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends total appropriations of 
$1,310,948,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is 
$34,787,000 less than the budget request and $41,503,000 more 
than the 1999 level.

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1999........................................($4,251,717,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (4,575,052,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (4,594,694,000)

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural 
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or 
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are 
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans 
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans 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 Recommendations

    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, compared to the 1999 levels and 
the 2000 budget request:

                                   RURAL HOUSING SERVICE LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     1999         2000 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Low-income family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................    \1\ (965,313)      (1,100,000)      (1,100,000)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed..............................      (3,000,000)      (3,200,000)      (3,200,000)
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................     \2\ (25,001)         (32,396)         (32,396)
    Farm labor (sec. 514)....................................         (20,000)         (25,001)         (25,001)
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................        (114,321)        (100,000)        (114,321)
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................    \3\ (100,000)        (100,000)        (100,000)
    Credit sales of acquired property........................         (16,930)          (7,503)         (12,824)
    Site loans (sec. 524)....................................          (5,152)          (5,152)          (5,152)
    Self-help housing land development fund..................          (5,000)          (5,000)          (5,000)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, RHIF..........................................      (4,251,717)      (4,575,052)      (4,594,694)
                                                              ==================================================
Grants and payments:
    Mutual and self-help housing.............................          26,000           30,000           26,000
    Rental assistance........................................         583,397      \5\ 440,000          640,000
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................      \4\ 41,000           54,000           41,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, rural housing grants and pay-  ments..........         650,397      \5\ 524,000          707,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, RHS loans and grants..........................      (4,902,114)      (4,899,052)      (5,301,694)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $10,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
  Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $1,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
  Law 106-31.
\3\ USDA changed the subsidy rate from 2.32 to 3.10 when interim regulations were published. The new rules will
  provide $74,839,000 in loans.
\4\ Excludes estimated $1,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
  Law 106-31.
\5\ Excludes proposed fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations $200,000,000.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Administrative
                                                          Direct loan       Guaranteed loan        expenses,
                                                            subsidy             subsidy       including transfer
                                                                                                   from RHIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999................................             192,265               5,020           (360,785)
Budget estimate, 2000...............................             155,877              20,000           (383,879)
Committee recommendation............................             162,185              20,000           (360,785)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2000, as well 
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 1999 levels and the 
2000 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  1999 level      2000 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................     \1\ 114,100           93,830           93,830
        Unsubsidized guaranteed..............................           2,700           19,520           19,520
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................       \2\ 8,808            9,900            9,900
    Farm labor (sec. 514)....................................          10,406           11,308           11,308
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................          55,160           39,680           45,363
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................           2,320              480              480
    Site loans...............................................              17                4                4
    Credit sales of acquired property........................           3,492              874            1,499
    Self-help housing land development fund..................             282              281              281
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................     \3\ 197,285          175,877          182,185
                                                              ==================================================
Administrative expenses......................................          60,978           61,979           60,978
(Transfer from RHIF).........................................        (360,785)        (383,879)        (360,785)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHS administrative expenses.....................        (421,763)        (445,858)        (421,763)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $1,182,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes $352,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
\3\ Excludes $2,534,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $583,397,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................     440,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     640,000,000

\1\ Excludes a proposed advance appropriation of $200,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2001.

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

                       committee recommendations

    For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $640,000,000. This amount is 
$200,000,000 more than the budget request and $56,603,000 more 
than the 1999 level.
    The Committee does not recommend an advance appropriation 
of $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 to meet fiscal year 1999 
contract obligations, as proposed in the budget.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,000,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This is the same as the 1999 level and is 
$4,000,000 less than the budget request.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $41,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      54,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,000,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the 
Committee recommends $41,000,000. This is $13,000,000 less than 
the budget request and the same as the 1999 level.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the 1999 levels and the budget 
request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                    1999 level     2000 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic farm labor grants......................................          11,365          15,000          11,365
Very low-income housing repair grants...........................          21,768          30,000          21,768
Rural housing preservation grants...............................           7,867           9,000           7,867
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          41,000          54,000          41,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total, RHS
                                                              Appropriation     Transfer from     salaries and
                                                                                loan accounts       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................            60,978         (360,785)         (421,763)
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................            61,979         (383,879)         (445,858)
Committee recommendation..................................            60,978         (360,785)         (421,763)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Housing Service, 
including transfers from other accounts, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $421,763,000. This is 
$24,095,000 less than the budget request and the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 level.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $52,860,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      63,201,000
Committee recommendation................................      54,585,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    For the Rural Business-Cooperative Service loans and 
grants, the Committee recommends a program level of 
$58,756,000. This is $7,544,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 
level and $17,739,000 less than the budget request.
    The following table presents the Committee's recommended 
levels for loans and grants administered by the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service, as compared to the 1999 levels and the 
budget request:

           RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE GRANTS AND LOANS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                               1999 level   2000 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural development loan fund.      (33,000)      (52,495)       (38,256)
Rural economic development        (15,000)      (15,000)       (15,000)
 loans......................
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total, RBS loans......      (48,000)      (67,495)       (53,256)
                             ===========================================
Rural cooperative                   3,300         9,000          5,500
 development grants.........
                             ===========================================
      Total, RBS loans and    \1\ (51,300)      (76,495)       (58,756)
       grants...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional $15,000,000 for EZ/EC activities.

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1999........................................   ($33,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    (52,495,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (38,256,000)

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small 
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural 
businesses, community development corporations, private 
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the 
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities, 
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy 
in rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2000, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       Committee Recommendations

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee recommends a total level of $38,256,000. This is 
$14,239,000 less than the budget request and $5,256,000 more 
than the 1999 level.
    The following table presents the Committee's 
recommendations for direct loan subsidy and administrative 
expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget 
request levels:

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                          Direct loan        expenses
                                            subsidy        transfer to
                                                               RBCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999..................     $16,615,000      ($3,482,000)
Budget estimate, 2000.................      22,799,000       (3,337,000)
Committee recommendation..............      16,615,000       (3,337,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                             1999 level        2000 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................           (15,000)           (15,000)           (15,000)
Direct loan subsidy....................................         \1\ 3,783          \1\ 3,453          \1\ 3,453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy 
appropriation for rural economic development loans of 
$3,453,000. This amount is the same as the budget request and 
$330,000 less than the 1999 level. As proposed in the budget, 
the $3,453,000 provided is derived by transfer from interest on 
the cushion of credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $3,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................       9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,500,000

\1\ Reflects a transfer of $2,000,000 from salaries and expenses to fund 
cooperative research agreements.

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-Federal sources. Grants are competitive and 
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical 
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for rural cooperative 
development grants. This is $2,200,000 more than the 1999 level 
and $3,500,000 less than the budget request. The Committee does 
not provide a transfer of $2,000,000 from salaries and expenses 
to fund cooperative research agreements, as proposed in the 
budget.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
consider the following applications for cooperative development 
grants: Malt Montana, Inc.; Multi-state regional cooperative 
development centers; Dawson County economic development, MT; 
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives; and eastern shore 
economic development, VA.
    Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development 
grants, $1,500,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for 
the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total, RBS,
                                                              Appropriation     Transfer from     salaries and
                                                                                loan accounts       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................            25,680           (3,482)          (29,162)
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................            24,612           (3,337)          (27,949)
Committee recommendation..................................            25,680           (3,337)          (29,017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends $29,017,000 for salaries and 
expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. This is 
$145,000 less than the 1999 level and $1,068,000 more than the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations 
of the cooperative services office in Hilo, HI, to address the 
increasing demand for cooperatives by the expanding diversified 
agriculture sector in Hawaii.

  ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION 
                             REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,500,000

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 to 
the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Corporation Revolving Fund. This is the same as the fiscal year 
1999 level and $6,500,000 less than the budget request.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1999........................................($1,561,500,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (1,070,000,000)
Committee allowance..................................... (1,561,500,000)

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

                       committee recommendations

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommended 
loan levels for the ``Rural electrification and 
telecommunications loans program'' account, as compared to the 
fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                              --------------------------    Committee
                                                2000      recommendation
                                1999 level    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Direct loans:
        Electric 5 percent...     (71,500)     (50,000)         (71,500)
        Telecommunications 5      (75,000)     (50,000)         (75,000)
         percent.............
                              ------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........    (146,500)    (100,000)        (146,500)
                              ==========================================
Treasury rate:                   (300,000)    (300,000)        (300,000)
 Telecommunications..........
Muni-rate: Electric..........    (295,000)    (250,000)        (295,000)
FFB loans:
    Electric, regular........    (700,000)    (300,000)        (700,000)
    Telecommunications.......    (120,000)    (120,000)        (120,000)
                              ------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............  (1,415,000)    (970,000)      (1,415,000)
                              ==========================================
      Total, loan              (1,561,500)  (1,070,000)      (1,561,500)
       authorizations........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends budget authority to support an 
estimated $1,561,500,000 program level for electric loans, 
$491,500,000 more than the budget request and the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 level.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2000, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                       committee recommendations

    The following table presents the Committee's recommendation 
for the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared 
to the 1999 level and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  1999 level      2000 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Direct loans:
        Electric 5 percent...................................           9,325              450              643
        Telecommunications 5 percent.........................           7,342              560              840
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          16,667            1,010            1,483
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Treasury rate: Telecommunications............................             810            2,370            2,370
Muni-rate: Electric..........................................          25,842            9,175           10,826
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................          43,319           12,555           14,679
                                                              ==================================================
RETLP administrative expenses................................          29,982           31,046           29,982
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, ``Rural electrification and telecommunications            73,301           43,601           44,661
       loans program'' account...............................
(Loan authorization).........................................      (1,561,500)      (1,070,000)      (1,561,500)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

Loan level, 1999........................................  ($157,509,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   (175,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (157,509,000)

    The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A 
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time 
after September 30, 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.
    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 2000, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       committee recommendations

    The following table presents the Committee's 
recommendations for the direct loan subsidy and administrative 
expenses, as compared to the 1999 and budget request levels:

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct loan   Administrative
                                              subsidy        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999....................      $4,174,000      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............       3,290,000       3,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............       2,961,000       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the ``Rural
  Telephone Bank liquidation'' account.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND telemedicine program

                            loans and grants

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  1999 level      2000 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorization...........................................        (150,000)        (200,000)        (200,000)
Direct loan subsidy..........................................             180              700              700
Grants.......................................................          12,500           20,000           12,500
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total................................................          12,680           20,700           13,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program is 
authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. 
This program provides incentives to improve the quality of 
phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                       Committee Recommendations

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee recommends $13,200,000. This is $520,000 more than 
the 1999 level and $7,500,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to the following applications for grants and 
loans: the National Center for American Indian and Alaska 
Native Mental Health Research Center multistate digital/
distance learning project; a distance learning link between the 
Bennington school system and rural schools in Southern Vermont; 
the continuing education model distance learning program made 
up of a consortium of Kansas State University and community 
colleges in Colby, Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal, KS; 
Hundley-Whaley Research Center, Missouri; Northern California 
Telemedicine Network; 1994 land grant institutions; and the 
Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, a multiagency 
statewide telemedicine initiative to provide health care 
services to remote communities on a cost-effective basis by 
saving unnecessary air transportation costs to urban and 
regional health care providers.
    The Committee also is aware of the need for the distance 
learning and telemedicine link program of the Maui Community 
College, the community hospital system, and the nutrition 
education activities of the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The Committee 
encourages the Department to fund a demonstration project to 
build upon existing resources and to further the use of 
advanced telecommunications by rural communities.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total, RUS,
                                                              Appropriation    Transfers from     salaries and
                                                                                loan accounts       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................       $33,000,000     ($32,982,000)     ($65,982,000)
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................        34,107,000      (34,046,000)      (68,153,000)
Committee recommendation..................................        33,000,000      (32,982,000)      (65,982,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends $65,982,000, including transfers 
of funds, for salaries and expenses of the Rural Utilities 
Service. This is the same as the 1999 level and $2,171,000 less 
than the budget request.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $554,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         576,000
Committee recommendation................................         554,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $554,000. This amount is the same as the 1999 
level and $22,000 less than the budget request.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Food assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally 
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and 
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children. 
These programs include:
    Child nutrition programs.--The national school lunch and 
school breakfast, summer food service, and child and adult care 
food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches 
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school 
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the special milk program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children. 
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and 
transfer from section 32.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income by providing 
supplemental foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be 
done through health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food 
stores, or other approved methods which a cooperating State 
health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided 
by direct appropriation.
    WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program.--This program 
provides (WIC and WIC-eligible) participants with coupons to 
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and 
vegetables, from farmers markets. The program is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or 
WIC-eligible participants; and (2) increase the awareness and 
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance 
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a 
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of food stamps. The 
program also includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 
authorizes a block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto 
Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in 
establishing a food assistance program that is specifically 
tailored to the needs of its low-income households.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that 
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase 
commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Funds 
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] and 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by 
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance 
Act.
    Food Donations Programs.--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. It also provides funding for 
use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters. Commodities, or cash in lieu of commodities, are 
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly. Funds 
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Food Program Administration.--Most salaries and Federal 
operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 
from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition 
Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and 
revisions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the 
focal point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion 
and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As 
of September 30, 1998, there were 1,557 full-time permanent and 
107 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. FNS's 
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria VA, totals 
539, and 1,025 FNS employees are located in the field. There 
are 7 regional offices employing 820 employees, and the balance 
of the agency is located in 6 food stamp compliance offices, 1 
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative 
review office, and 70 field offices. Funds for this program are 
provided by direct appropriation.

                        child nutrition programs


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 32
                                                              Appropriation       transfers           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................         4,128,747         5,048,150         9,176,897
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................     \1\ 4,635,768         4,929,268         9,565,036
Committee recommendation..................................     \2\ 4,624,829         4,935,199         9,560,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $15,000,000 in discretionary funding.
\2\ Includes $13,000,000 in discretionary funding.

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the National 
School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, provide 
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or 
at a low cost depending on their family income level. FNS 
provides cash subsidies to States administering the programs 
and directly administers the program in the States which choose 
not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional training and 
surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under current 
law, most of these payments are made on the basis of 
reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches 
and breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement 
rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer 
Price Index for food away from home.
    The 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.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently 
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 
18 in after-school programs, 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 will be transferred into 
the 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.
    A description of child nutrition programs follows:
    1. Cash payments to States.--The programs are operated 
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the 
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to 
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and 
other institutions. Sponsors make application to the State 
agencies, and if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis 
in accordance with the terms of their agreements and rates 
prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted 
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for 
food away from home.
          (a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to 
        the States for the service of lunches to all school 
        children, regardless of family income. States must 
        match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year 
        2000, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.6 billion school lunches 
        including 1.9 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.7 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 27.4 million children 
        are expected to participate in the program daily during 
        the school year.
          (b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price 
        lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the 
        States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price 
        to needy children. In fiscal year 2000, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.6 
        billion lunches, of which 2.3 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.4 billion at reduced price. About 
        16 million needy children will participate in the 
        program on an average schoolday during the year.
          (c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement 
        to the States is based on the number of breakfasts 
        served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate 
        for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools 
        are designated in severe need because, in the second 
        preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of 
        their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the 
        regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to 
        cover cost, receive higher rates of reimbursement in 
        both the free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal 
        year 2000, the program will serve an estimated 1.3 
        billion breakfasts to a daily average of 7.8 million 
        children.
          A pilot project is authorized to study the effects of 
        providing free breakfast to all students without regard 
        to family income.
          (d) State administrative expenses.--The funds may be 
        used for State employee salaries, benefits, support 
        services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made 
        the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 
        percent of certain Federal payments in the second 
        previous year. In fiscal year 2000, $120,104,000 will 
        be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State 
        administrative expenses and to improve the management 
        of various nutrition programs.
          (e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free 
        to children in low-income neighborhoods during the 
        summer months are supported on a performance basis by 
        Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are 
        also provided for related State and local 
        administrative expenses. During the summer of 2000, 
        approximately 155.3 million meals will be served.
          (f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool 
        children receive year-round food assistance in 
        nonprofit child care centers and family and group day 
        care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits 
        profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation 
        under title XX of the Social Security Act to 
        participate in the program if 25 percent of the 
        children served are title XX participants. Certain 
        adult day care centers are also eligible for 
        participation in this program, providing subsidized 
        meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older. 
        The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State 
        agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, 
        suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related 
        State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2000, 
        approximately 1.8 billion meals will be served.
    2. Commodity procurement.--Commodities are purchased for 
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer 
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for 
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers 
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to 
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in 
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these 
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 
funds.
    3. Nutrition studies and education.--
          (a) Nutrition education and training [NET].--This 
        program provides funds to State agencies for the 
        development of comprehensive nutrition education and 
        information programs for children participating in or 
        eligible for school lunch and related child nutrition 
        programs.
          (b) National Food Service Management Institute 
        [NFSMI].--The National Food Service Management 
        Institute provides instruction for educators and school 
        food service personnel in nutrition and food service 
        management.
    4. Special milk.--In fiscal year 2000, approximately 131.4 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 123.8 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 2000, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 17.2 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 13.1 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $4,624,829,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $4,935,199,000, for a total program of $9,560,028,000. 
This amount is $383,131,000 more than the 1999 level and 
$5,008,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                    Child nutrition programs                       1999 estimate    2000 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................       5,435,480       5,480,010       5,480,010
School Breakfast Program........................................       1,351,580       1,421,789       1,421,789
State administrative expenses...................................         114,858         120,104         120,104
Summer Food Service Program.....................................         288,906         314,946         314,946
Child and Adult Care Food Program...............................       1,630,286       1,769,766       1,769,766
Special Milk Program............................................          17,445          17,551          17,551
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support.........         322,042         406,499         406,499
Nutrition studies and surveys...................................  ..............           3,000  ..............
Coordinated review system.......................................           4,300           4,363           4,363
Team nutrition..................................................          10,000          10,008          10,000
Food safety education...........................................           2,000           2,000           2,000
Nutrition education and training................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
School breakfast demonstration project..........................  ..............          13,000          13,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation includes $10,000,000 for 
team nutrition. Included in this amount is a minimum of 
$4,100,000 for food service training and technical assistance, 
of which $1,900,000 is for technical assistance materials, 
$475,000 is for print and electronic food service resource 
systems, and $800,000 is for cooperative agreements with the 
National Food Service Management Institute for food service; 
and $4,000,000 for food service training grants to States. The 
Committee encourages the agency to consider grant applications 
for local initiatives for nutrition education, such as the 
``Common Roots'' program. The Committee expects FNS to utilize 
the Food Service Management Institute to carry out the food 
safety education program.
    The Committee urges the Secretary to develop a better 
strategy to encourage participation in after-school centers by 
adolescents and older children through programs available under 
the authorities of the Child Nutrition Act. The Committee is 
concerned that members of the qualifying age group who lack 
proper after-school supervision will be more prone to 
participate in undesirable activities. The use of nutritional 
programs should be considered an appropriate tool to attract 
adolescents to a more risk-free environment which should help 
improve academic performance and reduce the incidence of 
juvenile crime. In addition, the Secretary is directed to 
provide information to the Committee relating to the 
effectiveness of such a program and provide views on the 
advisability of expanding the availability of free or reduced 
meals under this authority to children over the age of 12.
    The Committee has provided $13,000,000 for the school 
breakfast demonstration project. The Committee directs the 
Department to have a rigorous study which tests the claims made 
that major educational and behavioral improvements occur when 
school breakfasts are provided. The study should also be 
designed to consider the effects of changes in educational 
policies versus changes in the school breakfast program. The 
Committee encourages the agency to use the resources of the 
National School Food Service Management Institute and the 
Institute for Research on Poverty in the evaluation of the 
pilot program.
    The Committee directs the agency to prepare and submit a 
report to the Committee no later than January 1, 2000, that 
describes a comprehensive, integrated approach to nutrition 
education as a complement to the various nutrition assistance 
programs. Such a report should highlight the aspects of current 
programs such as Team Nutrition, the Nutrition Education and 
Training (NET) and other school-based nutrition programs to be 
included in an integrated program. The report should also 
identify gaps in current programs and approaches as well as 
potential funding sources and solutions. This report is to be 
developed in close consultation with other government agencies 
such as the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other 
organizations, including the American Dietetic Association, the 
Society for Nutrition Education, the National Association of 
State NET Coordinators, and the American School Food Service 
Association.
    The Committee urges the Department to provide technical 
assistance and guidance to those states not maximizing the 
number of children served under the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program in their jurisdiction. These states should be 
encouraged to follow the example of those states that pool a 
limited amount of Title XX with Child Care Development Block 
Grant (CCDBG) funds to meet the technical requirement of the 
current law.

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

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................  $3,924,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................   4,105,495,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................   4,038,107,000

\1\ Includes up to $15,000,000 for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program.
\2\ Excludes funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program which 
the budget proposes to fund under the ``Commodity Assistance Program'' 
account.

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.5 
million participants at an average food cost of $33.42 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2000.
    The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable 
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut 
butter.
    There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC 
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain 
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery 
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home; 
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick 
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge 
to all participants.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998 Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through 
2003 and adds several provisions to the program. For example, 
the act requires that an individual seeking certification or 
recertification in the program must provide documentation of 
family income. In addition, 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.
    Public Law 105-336 also includes many provisions to improve 
retailer integrity and help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse 
in the program.
    The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also 
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC (or 
WIC-eligible) participants by providing them with coupons to 
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and 
vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to increase the 
awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income households. 
Although directly related to the WIC Program, about one-half of 
the current FMNP operations are administered by State 
departments of agriculture rather than the State WIC agencies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $4,038,107,000. This amount is $114,107,000 
more than the 1999 appropriation and $67,388,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The WIC Program continues to be a high priority of this 
Committee. The appropriation recommended by the Committee, 
together with anticipated carryover funds, will provide 
sufficient funding to maintain a 7.4 million average monthly 
WIC participation level in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee makes available up to $15,000,000, the same 
as the fiscal year 1999 level, to carry out the WIC Farmers' 
Market Nutrition Program.
    The Committee commends state and local WIC agencies for 
their commitment to promoting the overall health and 
nutritional well-being of the nation's low-income, 
nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children. Recognizing 
that for many participants, WIC may be the only consistent 
point of contact with public and private health services, 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. Among the issues WIC 
agencies face in accomplishing these goals is the lack of 
reimbursement for additional services, including screening and 
assessment services, for other Federal agency services and 
programs. As an example, the National Association of WIC 
Directors estimates that screening, assessment and referral 
services performed at the level requested of WIC by the 
National Immunization Program (NIP) could cost the WIC program 
over $84,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 with reimbursement for 
those services from NIP at less than $8,000,000. This 
jeopardizes 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 includes language in the 
bill to preserve WIC funding for authorized WIC services. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to work with 
other Federal departments and agencies to ensure that, except 
for 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 or programs unless 
fully reimbursed by those agencies.

                           food stamp program


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          TEFAP
                                              Expenses      Amount in    Puerto Rico    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve                    purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................  \1\ 19,909,1       100,000     1,236,000        90,000  \1\ 21,335,1
                                                      06                                                      06
Budget estimate, 2000.....................    20,109,444     1,000,000     1,268,000       100,000  \2\ 27,284,4
                                                                                                              44
Committee recommendation..................    20,098,744       100,000     1,268,000        97,000    21,563,744
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional funding of $500,000 appropriated by Public Law 105-379 for a study of a national data
  base for Federal means-tested public assistance programs, and includes the rescission of $1,250,000,000 of the
  funds appropriated, pursuant to Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Reflects an additional $7,000,000 for discretionary spending and an advance fiscal year 2001 appropriation
  of $4,800,000.

    The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance. The Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
193, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 
2002.
    The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Participating households receive food stamps, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the stamps is paid by the Federal Government and is called the 
benefit cost. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition 
Service periodically revises household stamp allotments to 
reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan. The last 
revision was made on October 1, 1998.
    State social service agencies assume responsibility for 
certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps through 
suitable outlets. Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps 
as payment for food purchases and forward them to commercial 
banks for cash or credit. The stamps flow through the banking 
system to the Federal Reserve Bank for redemption out of a 
special account maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department. The 
major alternative to the paper food stamp system is electronic 
benefit transfer [EBT].
    By the end of fiscal year 1998, 35 States and the District 
of Columbia had operating EBT systems. They are Alabama, 
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and 
Wyoming. Twenty-eight of these systems are statewide. All other 
States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT 
systems.
    Nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a 
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives 
the commonwealth broad flexibility to establish a food 
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households. However, the commonwealth must 
submit its annual plan of operation to the Secretary for 
approval. The FAIR Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127, enacted 
November 5, 1996, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal 
year 2002. In addition to the provision of direct benefits to 
the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to fund up to 50 
percent of the cost of administering the program. The grant may 
also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture and food 
distribution in Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that 
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase 
commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Administrative costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis. Under the Hunger Prevention Act of 
1988, a State agency is held liable if its error rate of 
overissuances exceeds the lowest achieved national error rate 
average plus 1 percent. Liabilities are based on the level of 
State issuance and the extent to which the State's error rate 
exceeds a tolerance level. State agencies which reduce quality 
control error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum 
match of 60 percent of their administrative expenses. Also, 
State agencies are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of 
administering the program on Indian reservations.
    State administration also includes State antifraud 
activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief 
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations 
and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, 
training, or experience that will increase their ability to 
obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department 
of Agriculture implemented a new grant program to States to 
assist them in providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends 
$21,563,774,000. This is $228,638,000 more than the 1999 
appropriated level and $5,720,700,000 less than the budget 
request. Of the amount provided, $100,000,000 is made available 
as a contingency reserve, $900,000,000 less than the 
contingency reserve level proposed in the budget and the same 
as the 1999 level. The Committee does not include in its 
recommendation discretionary funding for outreach activities or 
an advance fiscal year 2001 appropriation, as proposed in the 
budget.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $131,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................     155,215,000
Committee recommendation................................     131,000,000

\1\ Includes $20,000,000 in funding for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition 
Program.

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the 
President proposes to merge the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition 
Program into this program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program 
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6, 
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have 
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    In fiscal year 2000 approximately 129,100 women, infants, 
and young children and 282,800 elderly are authorized to 
receive food packages each month. The foods are provided by the 
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State 
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant 
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The 1996 FAIR Act, Public Law 104-127, reauthorizes the 
program through fiscal year 2002.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Title II of 
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and 
appropriated funds for the costs of intrastate storage and 
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. Under the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-193), the Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP by amending section 201A of the Emergency 
Food Assistance Act. While commodities will not be purchased 
specifically for soup kitchens and food banks, they will be 
eligible to receive commodities through TEFAP.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    In fiscal year 1998, $108,800,000 worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Donations will continue in fiscal year 1999. Precise levels 
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and 
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2000, 
$45,000,000 will be used to help State and local authorities 
with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus 
commodities to needy individuals. Although the $45,000,000 was 
allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds, 
each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase 
of additional commodities.
    The 1996 FAIR Act reauthorizes administrative funding 
through fiscal year 2002 and allows these funds to be used for 
local repackaging and further processing of commodities high in 
nutrient content. The law requires CCC bonus commodities to be 
distributed through TEFAP, and reauthorizes funding for the 
purchase of TEFAP commodities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $131,000,000. This amount is the 
same as the 1999 appropriation and $24,215,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The Committee continues to encourage the Department to 
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among 
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities 
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity 
allocations through each of the three programs funded under 
this account.

                        FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $141,081,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     151,081,000
Committee recommendation................................     141,081,000

    Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--Commodity support for 
the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is authorized by titles 
III and VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods 
provided are used in preparing meals which are served in senior 
citizen centers and similar settings or delivered to the 
homebound elderly. These meals are the focal point of the 
nutrition projects for the elderly which have the dual 
objective of promoting better health and reducing the isolation 
of old age.
    Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are 
distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites at a 
specific rate per meal. The estimated rate for 1999 is 55.40 
cents per meal. Some States elect to take all of their subsidy 
in cash and some States choose to receive a combination of cash 
and commodities. The commodities made available to the 
Nutrition Program for the Elderly are generally the same as 
those provided to schools under the child nutrition programs.
    Pacific Island assistance.--This program provides funding 
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding 
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the food donations programs for selected groups, the 
Committee recommends $141,081,000. This amount is the same as 
the 1999 appropriation and $10,000,000 less than the budget 
request. Of the amount recommended by the Committee, $1,081,000 
is for food distribution payments to the Pacific Islands and 
$140,000,000 is for the elderly feeding program.

                      food program administration

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................    $108,561,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     119,841,000
Committee recommendation................................     111,561,000

\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $2,000,000 from the Economic 
Research Service for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public Law 105-
277.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $111,561,000. This amount is $8,280,000 
less than the budget request and $3,000,000 more than the 1999 
level. The Committee's recommendation includes $3,000,000 of 
the increase requested in the budget for program and financial 
integrity advancement. The need to strengthen review and 
oversight of food and nutrition programs and of the State 
agencies carrying out these programs is clear given the recent 
findings of the General Accounting Office and USDA's Office of 
the Inspector General.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Transfers from
                                                             Appropriations     loan accounts         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................           136,203           (4,266)         (140,469)
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................       \1\ 137,768           (4,506)     \1\ (142,274)
Committee recommendation..................................           136,203           (4,266)         (140,469)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposes legislation to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
  ($27,500,000) from Commodity Credit Corporation funds.

    The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence 
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with 
information on world agricultural production and trade that 
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a 
continuous program of reporting by 64 posts located throughout 
the world covering some 130 countries.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural 
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and 
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current 
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific 
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about 
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to 
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate 
these estimates.
    In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques 
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of 
events which may affect the condition and expected production 
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States. 
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided 
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and 
related data.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 71 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with 
market development cooperators, trade associations, State 
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales 
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS 
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural 
products, provides information about foreign importers, and 
performs a wide range of market development activities.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, 
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association 
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture 
export expansion. Through 1998, nonprofit private trade and 
producer associations have generated an estimated 
$1,288,000,000 in contributions to more than match the 
$764,000,000 contributed by FAS to finance overseas market 
promotion activities under the Cooperator Program. In addition, 
GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the 
recent progress of American agriculture in the world 
marketplace.
    The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to 
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17 
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to 
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing 
officials in trade promotion.
    The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the 
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with 
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance 
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies 
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to 
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports 
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate 
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S. 
agricultural exports to third markets.
    FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of 
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote 
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing 
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural 
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all 
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies 
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of 
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in 
its work with foreign countries, international organizations, 
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S. 
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.

                       committee recommendations

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $136,203,000. This is the same 
as the 1999 appropriation and $1,565,000 less than the budget 
request.
    The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 
levels for the Cochran Fellowship Program and for the Foreign 
Market Development Cooperator Program.
    The Committee includes language in the bill, as requested 
in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the amount 
appropriated to the FAS to remain available until expended 
solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in 
international currency exchange rates, subject to 
documentation.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) 
in order to ensure U.S. producers have fair access to foreign 
markets.
    The Committee recognizes the benefits of providing for new 
participants in the Foreign Market Development and other 
Foreign Agricultural Service export programs. This ensures, to 
the full extent possible, that producers in every state, and 
that all types and forms of the commodity, are fairly 
represented. The Committee commends FAS for its recent efforts 
to ensure such fair representation for all types of rice and 
for all U.S. rice producers.
    The Committee is aware of efforts underway by the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to develop emerging markets in areas 
including the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and 
Estonia. The Committee encourages the agency to consider a 
request of the University of Wisconsin-River Falls to 
participate in this program.

                             public law 480

                 public law 480 title i program account

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative
                                                              Credit level      Loan subsidy        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................       \1\ 203,475       \1\ 176,596         \1\ 1,850
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................           138,324           114,062             1,938
Committee recommendation..................................           142,840           117,786             1,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes credit level of $762,665,263, subsidy of $637,620,285, and administrative expenses of $2,000,000
  associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit
  Corporation.

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

                       committee recommendations

    For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends a 
program level of $159,089,000. This amount is $60,635,000 less 
than the 1999 level and $8,765,000 more than the budget 
request. Along with estimated title I carryover balances, the 
budget authority recommended by the Committee for Public Law 
480 title I loan subsidy and ocean freight differential costs 
will, at a minimum, maintain the $219,724,000 funded fiscal 
year 1999 title I program level in fiscal year 2000. The 
corresponding loan levels, subsidies, and administrative 
expenses are reflected in the table above.
    The Committee is concerned that carryover balances in the 
Public Law 480 program (titles I and II) may exceed reasonable 
levels and expects the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to 
the Committee by December 1, 1999, an explanation as to why 
these balances have grown in recent years and the action being 
taken to fully utilize Public Law 480 resources.

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

Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $878,249,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     799,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     803,249,000

\1\ Excludes $88,057,501 associated with food assistance to Russia 
funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, and $149,200,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
provided by Public Law 106-31.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                                          PUBLIC LAW 480 GRANT ACCOUNT
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                   1999 enacted     2000 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I ocean freight differential..............................      \1\ 16,249          12,000          16,249
Title II commodities supplied in connection with dispositions        \2\ 837,000         787,000         787,000
 abroad.........................................................
Title III commodities supplied in connection with dispositions            25,000  ..............  ..............
 abroad.........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         \1\ \2\         799,000         803,249
                                                                         878,249
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $88,057,501 associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the
  Commodity Credit Corporation.
\2\ Excludes $149,200,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.

    Public Law 480, title II.--The new budget authority 
recommended by the Committee for title II, together with 
anticipated carryover balances, will allow, at a minimum, the 
fiscal year 1999 title II program level of $837,000,000 to be 
maintained in fiscal year 2000.
    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
[FAIR Act], Public Law 104-127, requires that a minimum of 
2.025 million metric tons of commodities be provided each 
fiscal year under title II authority, of which 1.55 million 
metric tons--three-fourths of the total minimum tonnage--is 
designated for development programs that address chronic hunger 
and its root causes in areas with inadequate food security.
    The Committee expects USAID's administration of Public Law 
480 title II to encourage private voluntary organizations 
[PVO's], cooperatives, and the World Food Program [WFP] to 
generate a sufficient volume of proposals to allocate roughly 
three-fourths of the total title II tonnage funded for fiscal 
year 2000 for these PVO's, cooperatives, and the WFP for 
developmental food security programs.
    The Committee recognizes the authority of USAID to waive 
this minimum when this volume of commodities cannot be used 
effectively and for certain emergencies, but believes this 
waiver should be used rarely, and only when emergency needs can 
be weighed against concrete proposals for a fully funded 
longer-term development program.
    The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal 
year 2000 to continue the fiscal year 1999 level for the orphan 
feeding program in Haiti.
    The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the 
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith 
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to 
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people 
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the 
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of 
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far 
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and 
hospitals.
    Public Law 480, title III.--As proposed in the budget, the 
Committee provides no new funding for title III grants. 
Authority is provided to transfer funds to title III should a 
transfer be deemed appropriate.

       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Guaranteed loan   Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                 levels            subsidy          expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................................         4,721,000       \1\ 437,355             3,820
Budget estimate, 2000.....................................         4,506,000       \1\ 439,590             4,085
Committee recommendation..................................         4,506,000       \1\ 439,590             3,820
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

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

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

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

                         salaries and expenses

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Mammography
                                            Appropriation     Prescription         clinics            Total
                                                             drug user fees    inspection fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999....................           970,867           132,273            14,385         1,117,525
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............         1,109,950           145,434            14,817         1,270,201
Committee recommendation................         1,035,538           145,434            14,817         1,195,789
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget assumes that an additional $17,000,000 in collections will be available to FDA for
  fiscal year 2000 from proposed new user fees, and an additional $13,400,000 will be available for anti-
  bioterrorism activities by transfer from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund.

                       committee recommendations

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,035,538,000. This amount is $64,672,000 
more than the 1999 level and $74,412,000 less than the budget 
request. The Committee also recommends $145,434,000 in 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, and 
$14,817,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee 
collections, as assumed in the President's budget. These 
amounts are $13,161,000 and $432,000 above the 1999 levels, 
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which 
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any 
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. The 
Committee continues its view that legislative proposals to 
establish new user fees should be submitted for consideration 
by the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress and 
not assumed in the appropriations request until enacted into 
law.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget 
request levels:

           FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                              1999 enacted  2000 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field
 activities:
    Foods...................      231,580       265,955   \1\ \2\ 264,84
                                                                     5
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Food            98,536       116,011   \1\ \2\ 117,44
         Safety and Applied                                          0
         Nutrition [CFSAN]..
        Field activities....      133,044       149,944    \2\ 147,405
            Food safety          (144,976)     (169,576)      (165,276)
             initiatives)...
                             ===========================================
    Seafood Inspection        ............        3,000   ..............
     Program................
                             ===========================================
    Human drugs.............      200,305       214,007    \2\ 206,273
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug           128,464       139,493    \2\ 133,799
         Evaluation and
         Research [CDER]....
        Orphan product             11,542        11,115         11,542
         grants.............
        Field activities....       60,299        63,399     \2\ 60,932
                             ===========================================
    Biologics...............       96,279       107,429    \2\ 101,407
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics       78,535        85,485     \2\ 83,556
         Evaluation and
         Research [CBER]....
        Field activities....       17,744        21,944     \2\ 17,851
                             ===========================================
    Animal drugs............       41,973        52,473     \1\ 48,221
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for                 29,375        36,375   \1\ \2\ 35,595
         Veterinary Medicine
         [CVM]..............
        Field activities....       12,598        16,098     \2\ 12,626
            Food safety            (4,100)       (7,700)  \1\ \2\ (8,400
             initiatives)...                                          )
                             ===========================================
    Medical and radiological      145,736       164,411    \2\ 154,271
     devices................
                             -------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices        106,561       114,736    \2\ 114,211
         and Radiological
         Health  [CDRH].....
        Field activities....       39,175        49,675     \2\ 40,060
                             ===========================================
    National Center for            31,579        33,679     \2\ 34,436
     Toxicological Research
     [NCTR].................
        (Food safety                 (500)       (1,000)          (900)
         initiatives).......
                             ===========================================
    Tobacco.................       34,000        68,000         34,000
                             ===========================================
Other activities............       80,694        80,604     \2\ 71,693
                             -------------------------------------------
    Office of the                  11,710        11,620      \2\ 9,527
     Commissioner...........
    Office of Policy........        2,867         2,867         ( \2\ )
    Office of External             15,061        15,061         ( \2\ )
     Affairs................
    Office of Operations....        3,559         3,559         ( \2\ )
    Office of Management and       38,964        38,964     \2\ 30,923
     Systems................
    Office of Senior          ............  ............    \2\ 10,265
     Associate Commissioner.
    Office of International   ............  ............     \2\ 4,914
     and Constituent
     Relations..............
    Office of Policy,         ............  ............     \2\ 8,544
     Legislation, and
     Planning...............
    Central services........        8,533         8,533      \2\ 7,520
        (Food safety               (8,759)       (8,759)        (8,759)
         initiatives).......
                             ===========================================
Rent and related activities.       25,855        25,855         25,855
Rental payments to GSA......       82,866        94,537         94,537
                             ===========================================
      Total, FDA salaries         970,867   \3\ 1,109,95  \1\ \2\ 1,035,
       and expenses, new                              0            538
       budget authority.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes approved fiscal year 1999 food safety reprogramming.
\2\ Reflects impact of proposed reorganization of the Commissioner's
  office and related activities..
\3\ Excludes proposed $13,400,000 transfer from Public Health and Social
  Services Emergency Fund for anti-bioterrorism activities.

    Food safety.--An increase of $25,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 level of $158,335,000 is recommended by the Committee 
for FDA food safety activities.
    Included in the amount provided for food safety, the 
Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 funding level of 
$250,000 for a cooperative research program related to 
molluscan shellfish and further expects the agency to continue 
its education program on the consumption of raw shellfish.
    With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public 
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in 
food safety should continue among government, academia, and 
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has 
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) 
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to 
maintain at least $2,000,000 as the annual base level of 
funding for the National Center. The Committee encourages the 
FDA to consider a reprogramming of funds to provide up to an 
additional $1,000,000, subject to the procedures for the 
reprogramming of funds contained in this act.
    Premarket application review.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $28,000,000 in budget authority from the fiscal 
year 1999 level for FDA premarket application review. This is 
the same amount requested in the budget for these activities 
through a combination of new budget authority and collections 
from proposed new user fees.
    The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act now includes a mission 
statement that requires the agency to promote the public health 
by ``promptly and efficiently'' reviewing clinical research and 
taking action on the marketing of regulated products in ``a 
timely manner''. This mission statement reinforces the core 
statutory obligation of the agency to review drugs and devices 
within statutory time frames and to ensure speedy access by 
patients to new products. FDA has indicated that new blood 
products, animal drugs, medical devices, and food additives all 
suffer from lengthy review times, short of meeting statutory 
performance requirements. At the same time, new products are 
increasing annually.
    As proposed in the budget, the $28,000,000 increase in new 
budget authority for premarket application review is to be 
allocated as follows: $11,400,000 for foods (+51 FTEs); 
$2,400,000 for human drugs (+13 FTEs); $4,000,000 for biologics 
(+16 FTEs); $1,600,000 for animal drugs (+14 FTEs); $7,000,000 
for devices (+45 FTEs); and $1,600,000 for the National Center 
for Toxicological Research (+2 FTEs).
    The Committee understands the base appropriations and 
staffing levels for premarket review to be as follows: 
$16,310,000 and 134 FTEs for foods; $162,813,000 and 1,261 FTEs 
for human drugs; $57,263,000 and 410 FTEs for biologics; 
$11,546,000 and 115 FTEs for animal drugs; $48,500,000 and 477 
FTEs for medical devices.
    Included in the $11,400,000 increase provided for premarket 
application review for the foods program is an additional 
$5,400,000 for the the direct additive process and $6,000,000 
for FDA to fully implement the food contact substances program, 
as authorized by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization 
Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
    Included in the increase provided for human drugs premarket 
application review, the Committee provides an increase of 
$1,900,000, as proposed by the President, for the Office of 
Generic Drugs. As proposed in the budget, these funds are to be 
used to increase staffing levels of the Office of Generic Drugs 
by not less than 11 full-time equivalent positions above the 
fiscal year 1999 level.
    The aquaculture drug industry has done an excellent job 
within the past six years of conducting studies and assembling 
packages in support of New Animal Drug Applications, but the 
growth of the industry has exceeded FDA's capability to review 
aquaculture drug submissions in a timely manner. Within the 
increase provided to the Center for Veterinary Medicine to pre-
market application review, the Committee expects at least 
$200,000 and two new full-time equivalent positions to be 
provided above the 1999 level for the timely review of 
aquaculture drug submissions.
    The Committee believes that Americans should have timely 
access to medical technology. While review times for medical 
devices have improved over the past few years, FDA still falls 
short of meeting the statutory requirements. Even using the 
definition of ``first'' action taken, FDA reports that only 51 
percent of PMAs and 64 percent of 510(k)s received action 
within the required time frames. The additional resources 
appropriated for device premarket application review are to be 
used by FDA to improve the timeliness of its medical device 
review process to begin to meet statutory performance 
requirements.
    Clinical Pharmacology Program.--The Committee continues to 
provide $700,000, the fiscal year 1999 level of funding, for 
clinical pharmacology grants awarded on a competitive basis.
    Rent payments.--The Committee recommends $94,537,000 for 
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA], the same level as proposed in the budget and $11,671,000 
more than the 1999 level.
    Tobacco funding.--The Committee shares the administration's 
goal to protect the lives and health of the Nation's youth by 
reducing tobacco use by children and adolescents. Funding is 
continued at the fiscal year 1999 level of $34,000,000.
    The Committee emphasizes that its action is in no way to be 
construed as concurring or disagreeing with any court ruling 
regarding FDA's authority to implement its tobacco rule or the 
proposed tobacco settlement.
    The Committee believes that tobacco retailers are entitled 
to timely notification from FDA to violations of the tobacco 
rule. The Committee understands that FDA has made progress in 
this area, and that approximately 90 percent of the notices for 
first violations of the tobacco rule are mailed by FDA within 
two weeks of the date of the compliance check. The Committee 
expects FDA to remain committed to ensuring timely notification 
to tobacco retailers and expects a report on the additional 
progress it has made in this area to be submitted to the 
Committee no later than November 1, 1999. The agency should 
include in that report the time it is taking to notify 
retailers of first and subsequent violations from the date of 
the compliance check; the information being provided to 
retailers regarding the violation which occurred; and whether 
notices of violations are being mailed to corporate 
headquarters upon request.
    The Committee requires that the FDA evaluate the 
feasibility of equipping retailers of tobacco products with the 
technology to verify a tobacco purchaser's age through the use 
of an automated identification verification system capable of 
``reading'' a magnetic stripe or bar code on a driver's license 
in which the name and age of the licensee is encoded. FDA is to 
submit to the Committee, within 180 days of the enactment of 
this act, a report regarding the efficacy of reducing illegal 
tobacco sales to minors and the effect of compliance, through 
the use of automated identification systems that can read a 
magnetic stripe or bar code found on driver's licenses. This 
report, at a minimum, should include information indicating: 
the rate of compliance with minimum age sales and purchase 
requirements relating to tobacco in areas using the automated 
identification system as compared to areas not using such a 
system; whether such a system would work in all states; the 
ways by which to circumvent such systems and reduce their 
effectiveness; and the cost of imposing such a requirement on 
retailers and the states. Moreover, the report should identify 
the privacy issues, if any, which would be created if the 
automated identification verification system were to retain a 
tobacco purchaser's name and date of birth.
    Blood and blood product safety.--The Committee encourages 
the FDA to continue its efforts to enhance the safety of blood 
and blood products through enforcement of good manufacturing 
practices and to work with medical and consumer representatives 
of the National Hemophilia Foundation and the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention at the initiation of any 
investigation of possible contamination of blood and blood 
products. The Committee understands that screening of blood and 
blood products could be improved through the use of polymerase 
chain reaction techniques to detect known infectious disease 
and urges the FDA to develop industry guidance for this 
effective screening tool. The Committee also encourages FDA to 
move forward with its plans to require manufacturer tracking of 
blood-derived products to ensure prompt patient notification in 
adverse event situations.
    Ginseng imports.--The Committee is aware of potential 
problems related to imports of ginseng and urges the agency to 
take swift action in the event any such products are determined 
to be adulterated in order to eliminate any public concerns 
that could inadvertently have a negative impact on domestic 
producers.
    Bottled water.--The Committee directs the FDA to publish by 
March 2000 the final study of the feasibility of appropriate 
methods of informing consumers of the contents of bottled 
water, a study mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $11,350,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      31,750,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,350,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and 
facilities, the Committee recommends $8,350,000. This amount is 
$3,000,000 less than the 1999 appropriation and $23,400,000 
less than the budget request. Due to funding constraints, the 
Committee defers funding for new construction projects 
requested in the budget.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


                      Financial Management Service


  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,565,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-233) 
authorized such sums as necessary to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Treasury for payment to the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation [FAC]. Treasury payments 
annually reimburse the Corporation for interest expenses on 
debt issued by the Corporation, which is authorized to be 
issued through 1992. Treasury is authorized to pay all or part 
of FAC interest for the first 10 years on each 15-year debt 
issuance. Debt proceeds are used to provide assistance to 
financially troubled Farm Credit System lending institutions. 
Under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, the Farm Credit 
System's share of interest assessment for FAC debt would 
increase if the System's retained earnings exceeded 5 percent 
of its assets. For 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Treasury portion 
of interest assessments was estimated at 9, 7, and 2 percent, 
respectively.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends no appropriation for interest 
expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System Financial 
Assistance Corporation. This is the same as the budget request 
and $2,565,000 less than the 1999 level.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $61,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      67,655,000
Committee recommendation................................      61,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency funding of $356,000 transferred from the 
Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses account for Year 
2000 (Y2K) compliance pursuant to Public Law 105-277.

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

                       committee recommendations

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
recommends $61,000,000. The amount provided is the same as the 
1999 appropriation and $6,655,000 less than the budget request.
    Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide the full amount requested for the Commission.
    The Committee directs the Commission to provide a study to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the impact 
of current daily trading limits and the relationship of those 
limits to the volatility of milk prices as compared to other 
commodities such as corn, soybeans, and wheat.

                       Farm Credit Administration


               revolving fund for administrative expenses

Limitations, 1999.......................................   ($35,800,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends no limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. This is the same as 
the budget request. A limitation of $35,800,000 was placed on 
FCA administrative expenses for fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee is aware of the Farm Credit Administration's 
proposed rule to allow direct lending institutions to serve 
farmers throughout the country without obtaining the permission 
of the institution that has been chartered to serve in the 
specific territory. The Committee is concerned that this rule 
may have an unintended adverse impact on certain farm credit 
lending institutions and the farmers they serve. The Committee 
believes that the FCA should reevaluate the proposed rule to 
ensure that any institution's ability to serve farmers is not 
adversely affected.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701-711, 713-726, and 730-738 of the general 
provisions are essentially the same as those included in the 
fiscal year 1999 and previous years' appropriations acts.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following 
provisions:
    Section 712 to make appropriations for the Rural Housing 
Insurance Fund Program Account for fiscal years 1994 through 
fiscal year 1999 available until expended to cover obligations 
made in each of those years, respectively.
    Section 727 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel to enroll more than 180,000 acres in the Wetlands 
Reserve Program during fiscal year 2000.
    Section 728 to limit funds provided by the Food Stamp Act 
for commodity purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program to $97,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
    Section 729 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the 
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel to carry out the transfer or obligation of fiscal 
year 2000 funds under the provisions of section 401 of Public 
Law 105-185 in excess of $50,000,000.
    Section 739 to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture, from 
declaring as excess or surplus lands and facilities owned by 
the federal government and administered by the Secretary at 
Fort Reno, Oklahoma, or from transferring or conveying such 
lands or facilities, without the specific authorization of the 
Congress.
    Section 740 to give the Chief of the Natural Resources and 
Conservation Service 102-A authority for closeout costs.
    Section 741 to give the Secretary of Agriculture authority 
to establish a pilot program with the State of Hawaii for the 
inspection of mail.
    Section 742 to provide guaranteed lines of credit, 
including working capital loans, for health care facilities to 
address Year 2000 computer conversion issues.
    Section 743 to provide timely compensation to producers 
whose wheat crops were contaminated by karnal bunt.
    Section 744 to provide $3,000,000 for Bill Emerson and 
Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional 
Hunger Center.
    Section 745 provides $250,000 for the program authorized 
under Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 solely for use in the State of New 
Hampshire. The Committee is aware of the availability of 
matching funds for use in Chester, New Hampshire, for Dolloff 
Farms and expects these funds to be used for this purpose.
    Section 746 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
reduce the Department of Labor's approval time for processing 
farmer's applications for legal H-2A workers.
    Section 747 to provide for successorship relating to 
certain bargaining units and exclusive representatives.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2000, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following 
information provides the definition of the term ``program, 
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2000, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2000 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to 
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support 
of the fiscal year 2000 budget estimates, as amended, for such 
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action, 
and in addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports 
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each 
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2000:
    Dairy indemnity program; and
    Nutrition program for the elderly.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 1233, an original Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill, 2000, and S. 1234, an original 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations bill, 2000, each subject to amendment and each 
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin

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

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

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER II--IMMIGRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



    Part II--Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of 
Citizens and Aliens

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1188. Admission of temporary H-2A workers

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(c) Special rules for consideration of applications

    The following rules shall apply in the case of the filing 
and consideration of an application for a labor certification 
under this section:
    (1) Deadline for filing applications
            The Secretary of Labor may not require that the 
        application be filed more than [60 days] 45 days before 
        the first date the employer requires the labor or 
        services of the H-2A worker.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Issuance of certification
            (a) The Secretary of Labor shall make, not later 
        than [20 days] 30 days before the date such labor or 
        services are first required to be performed, the 
        certification described in subsection (a)(1) of this 
        section if--

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2000
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                           compared with (+ or -)
                           Item                                   1999         Budget estimate       Committee     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation                         recommendation          1999
                                                                                                                      appropriation     Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

          Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary..................................             2,836              2,942              2,836   .................              -106

Emergency grants to assist low-income immigrant and                 (20,000)  .................  .................          (-20,000)  .................
 seasonal workers emergency appropriations (Public Law
 106-31).................................................
Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist......................................             5,620              6,622              6,411               +791               -211
    National Appeals Division............................            11,718             12,699             11,718   .................              -981
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis................             6,120              6,583              6,583               +463   .................
    Office of the Chief Information Officer..............             5,551              7,998              5,551   .................            -2,447
        Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)........           (46,168)  .................  .................          (-46,168)  .................
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer................             4,283              6,288              5,283             +1,000             -1,005
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations........................            79,460             40,190             35,546            -43,914             -4,644

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.....               613                636                613   .................               -23
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.           137,184            166,364            145,364             +8,180            -21,000
    Payments to GSA......................................          (108,057)          (115,542)          (115,542)           (+7,485)  .................
    Building operations and maintenance..................           (24,127)           (24,822)           (24,822)             (+695)  .................
    Repairs, renovations, and construction...............            (5,000)           (26,000)            (5,000)  .................          (-21,000)
Hazardous waste management...............................            15,700             22,700             15,700   .................            -7,000
Departmental administration..............................            32,168             36,117             34,738             +2,570             -1,379
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers..............             3,000             10,000              3,000   .................            -7,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional                   3,668              3,805              3,668   .................              -137
 Relations...............................................
Office of Communications.................................             8,138              9,300              8,138   .................            -1,162
Office of the Inspector General..........................            65,128             68,246             65,128   .................            -3,118
Office of the General Counsel............................            29,194             32,675             30,094               +900             -2,581
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and               540              2,061                540   .................            -1,521
 Economics...............................................
Economic Research Service................................            65,757             55,628             65,419               -338             +9,791
National Agricultural Statistics Service.................           103,964            100,559             99,355             -4,609             -1,204
    Census of Agriculture................................           (23,599)           (16,490)           (16,490)           (-7,109)  .................

Agricultural Research Service............................           785,518            836,868            809,499            +23,981            -27,369
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....           (23,000)  .................  .................          (-23,000)  .................
        Rescission of emergency appropriations...........          (-22,466)  .................  .................          (+22,466)  .................
    Buildings and facilities.............................            56,437             44,500             53,000             -3,437             +8,500
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service...............           841,955            881,368            862,499            +20,544            -18,869
          Emergency Appropriations.......................           (23,000)  .................  .................          (-23,000)  .................
          Rescission of Emergency Appropriations.........          (-22,466)  .................  .................          (+22,466)  .................

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
 Service:
    Research and education activities....................           481,216            468,965            474,377             -6,839             +5,412
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund..........            (4,600)            (4,600)            (4,600)  .................  .................
    Extension activities.................................           437,987            401,603            421,620            -16,367            +20,017
    Integrated activities................................  .................            72,844             35,541            +35,541            -37,303
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and             919,203            943,412            931,538            +12,335            -11,874
       Extension Service.................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and                         618                641                618   .................               -23
 Regulatory Programs.....................................

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses................................           425,803            435,445            437,445            +11,642             +2,000
    AQI user fees........................................           (88,000)           (95,000)           (90,000)           (+2,000)           (-5,000)
    Buildings and facilities.............................             7,700              7,200              7,200               -500   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..           433,503            442,645            444,645            +11,142             +2,000

Agricultural Marketing Service:
    Marketing Services...................................            48,831             60,182             51,229             +2,398             -8,953
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....          (145,000)  .................  .................         (-145,000)  .................
        Standardization user fees........................            (4,000)            (4,000)            (4,000)  .................  .................
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees               (60,730)           (60,730)           (60,730)  .................  .................
     collected)..........................................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply              10,998             12,443             12,443             +1,445   .................
     (transfer from section 32)..........................
    Payments to states and possessions...................             1,200              1,200              1,200   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Marketing Service..............            61,029             73,825             64,872             +3,843             -8,953
          Emergency appropriations.......................          (145,000)  .................  .................         (-145,000)  .................

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses................................            26,787             26,448             24,287             -2,500             -2,161
    Limitation on inspection and weighing services.......           (42,557)           (42,557)           (42,557)  .................  .................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............               446                469                446   .................               -23
Food Safety and Inspection Service.......................           616,986            652,955            638,404            +21,418            -14,551
    Lab accreditation fees \1\...........................            (1,000)            (1,000)            (1,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing.......         3,447,877          3,572,986          3,477,448            +29,571            -95,538
          Emergency appropriations.......................          (188,000)  .................  .................         (-188,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                 Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign                      572                595                572   .................               -23
 Agricultural Services...................................

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses................................           714,499            794,839            794,839            +80,340   .................
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....           (42,753)  .................  .................          (-42,753)  .................

    (Transfer from export loans).........................              (589)              (672)              (589)  .................              (-83)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480).......................              (815)              (845)              (815)  .................              (-30)
    (Transfer from ACIF).................................          (209,861)          (209,861)          (209,861)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts..........          (211,265)          (211,378)          (211,265)  .................             (-113)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and expenses.......................          (968,517)        (1,006,217)        (1,006,104)          (+37,587)             (-113)
          Emergency Appropriations.......................           (42,753)  .................  .................          (-42,753)  .................

    State mediation grants...............................             2,000              4,000              2,000   .................            -2,000
    Dairy indemnity program..............................               450                450                450   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service Agency......................           716,949            799,289            797,289            +80,340             -2,000
          Emergency appropriations.......................           (42,753)  .................  .................          (-42,753)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Farm ownership loans:
                Direct...................................           (85,651)          (128,049)          (128,049)          (+42,398)  .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law           (200,000)  .................  .................         (-200,000)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                Guaranteed...............................          (425,031)          (431,373)          (431,373)           (+6,342)  .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law           (350,000)  .................  .................         (-350,000)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subtotal...........................          (510,682)          (559,422)          (559,422)          (+48,740)  .................
                          Emergency appropriations.......          (550,000)  .................  .................         (-550,000)  .................

            Farm operating loans:
                Direct...................................          (500,000)          (500,000)          (500,000)  .................  .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law           (185,000)  .................  .................         (-185,000)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                Guaranteed unsubsidized..................          (948,276)        (1,697,842)        (1,697,842)         (+749,566)  .................
                Guaranteed subsidized....................          (200,000)           (97,442)          (200,000)  .................         (+102,558)
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law           (185,000)  .................  .................         (-185,000)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subtotal...........................        (1,648,276)        (2,295,284)        (2,397,842)         (+749,566)         (+102,558)
                          Emergency appropriations.......          (370,000)  .................  .................         (-370,000)  .................

            Indian tribe land acquisition loans..........            (1,000)            (1,028)            (1,028)              (+28)  .................
            Emergency disaster loans.....................           (25,000)           (53,000)           (25,000)  .................          (-28,000)
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-          (175,000)  .................  .................         (-175,000)  .................
                 31).....................................
            Boll weevil eradication loans................          (100,000)          (100,000)          (100,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations.................        (2,284,958)        (3,008,734)        (3,083,292)         (+798,334)          (+74,558)
                  Emergency appropriations...............          (175,000)  .................  .................         (-175,000)  .................

        Loan subsidies:
            Farm ownership loans:
                Direct...................................            12,822              4,827              4,827             -7,995   .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law            (29,940)  .................  .................          (-29,940)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                Guaranteed...............................             6,758              2,416              2,416             -4,342   .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law             (5,565)  .................  .................           (-5,565)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subtotal...........................            19,580              7,243              7,243            -12,337   .................
                          Emergency Appropriations.......           (35,505)  .................  .................          (-35,505)  .................

            Farm operating loans:
                Direct...................................            34,150             29,300             29,300             -4,850   .................
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law            (12,635)  .................  .................          (-12,635)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                Guaranteed unsubsidized..................            11,000             23,940             23,940            +12,940   .................
                Guaranteed subsidized....................            17,480              8,585             17,620               +140             +9,035
                    Emergency appropriations (Public Law            (16,169)  .................  .................          (-16,169)  .................
                   106-31)...............................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subtotal...........................            62,630             61,825             70,860             +8,230             +9,035
                          Emergency Appropriations.......           (28,804)  .................  .................          (-28,804)  .................

            Indian tribe land acquisition................               153                 21                 21               -132   .................
            Emergency disaster loans.....................             5,900              8,231              3,882             -2,018             -4,349
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-           (41,300)  .................  .................          (-41,300)  .................
                 31).....................................
            Boll weevil loans subsidy....................             1,440   .................  .................            -1,440   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies......................            89,703             77,320             82,006             -7,697             +4,686
                  Emergency Appropriations...............          (105,609)  .................  .................         (-105,609)  .................

        ACIF expenses:
            Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA).......           209,861            209,861            209,861   .................  .................
            Administrative expenses......................            10,000              4,300              4,300             -5,700   .................
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-            (4,000)  .................  .................           (-4,000)  .................
                 31).....................................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF expenses.......................           219,861            214,161            214,161             -5,700   .................
                  Emergency Appropriations...............            (4,000)  .................  .................           (-4,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund..           309,564            291,481            296,167            -13,397             +4,686
                  Emergency Appropriations...............          (109,609)  .................  .................         (-109,609)  .................

                  (Loan authorization)...................        (2,284,958)        (3,008,734)        (3,083,292)         (+798,334)          (+74,558)
                  Emergency conservation program                    (28,000)  .................  .................          (-28,000)  .................
                   emergency appropriations (Public Law
                   106-31)...............................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Farm Service Agency.................         1,026,513          1,090,770          1,093,456            +66,943             +2,686
                  Emergency Appropriations...............          (180,362)  .................  .................         (-180,362)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Risk Management Agency...................................            64,000             70,716             64,000   .................            -6,716
Support Services Bureau..................................  .................            74,050   .................  .................           -74,050
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance Programs....................         1,091,085          1,236,131          1,158,028            +66,943            -78,103
          Emergency appropriations.......................           180,362   .................  .................          -180,362   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                       Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop                  1,504,036            997,000            997,000           -507,036   .................
 insurance corporation fund..............................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
    Reimbursement for net realized losses................         8,439,000         14,368,000         14,368,000         +5,929,000   .................
    Operations and maintenance for hazardous waste                   (5,000)            (5,000)            (5,000)  .................  .................
     management (limitation on administrative expenses)..
    Livestock Indemnity program (emergency appropriations            (3,000)  .................  .................           (-3,000)  .................
     Public Law 106-31)..................................
    Livestock disaster assistance fund (emergency                   (70,000)  .................  .................          (-70,000)  .................
     appropriations Public Law 106-31)...................
    Section 11 conservation technical assistance                    (28,000)  .................  .................          (-28,000)  .................
     (emergency appropriations Public Law 106-31)........
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Corporations..............................         9,943,036         15,365,000         15,365,000         +5,421,964   .................
            Emergency appropriations.....................          (101,000)  .................  .................         (-101,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
        Total, title I, Agricultural Programs............        14,481,998         20,174,117         20,000,476         +5,518,478           -173,641
                Appropriations...........................       (14,435,830)       (20,174,117)       (20,000,476)       (+5,564,646)         (-173,641)
                Emergency appropriations.................          (469,362)  .................  .................         (-469,362)  .................
                Rescission of Emergency Appropriations...          (-22,466)  .................  .................          (+22,466)  .................
            (By transfer)................................          (211,265)          (211,378)          (211,265)  .................             (-113)
            (Loan authorization).........................        (2,284,958)        (3,008,734)        (3,083,292)         (+798,334)          (+74,558)
            (Limitation on administrative expenses)......          (108,287)          (108,287)          (108,287)  .................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and                 693                721                693   .................               -28
 Environment.............................................

Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation operations..............................           641,243            680,679            656,243            +15,000            -24,436
        (By transfer)....................................  .................           (44,423)  .................  .................          (-44,423)
    Watershed surveys and planning.......................            10,368             11,732             10,368   .................            -1,364
    Watershed and flood prevention operations............            99,443             83,423             99,443   .................           +16,020
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....           (95,000)  .................  .................          (-95,000)  .................
    Resource conservation and development................            35,000             35,265             35,000   .................              -265
    Forestry incentives program..........................             6,325   .................             6,325   .................            +6,325
    Debt for nature......................................  .................             5,000   .................  .................            -5,000
    Farmland protection program..........................  .................            50,000   .................  .................           -50,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service......           792,379            866,099            807,379            +15,000            -58,720
          Emergency appropriations.......................           (95,000)  .................  .................          (-95,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs.............           793,072            866,820            808,072            +15,000            -58,748
              Emergency appropriations...................           (95,000)  .................  .................          (-95,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development......               588                612                588   .................               -24
    Rural community advancement program..................           722,686            670,103            718,006             -4,680            +47,903
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....           (30,000)  .................  .................          (-30,000)  .................
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family (sec. 502).....................          (965,313)        (1,100,000)        (1,100,000)         (+134,687)  .................
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-           (10,000)  .................  .................          (-10,000)  .................
                 31).....................................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed..................        (3,000,000)        (3,200,000)        (3,200,000)         (+200,000)  .................
            Housing repair (sec. 504)....................           (25,001)           (32,396)           (32,396)           (+7,395)  .................
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-            (1,000)  .................  .................           (-1,000)  .................
                 31).....................................
            Farm labor (sec. 514)........................           (20,000)           (25,001)           (25,001)           (+5,001)  .................
            Rental housing (sec. 515)....................          (114,321)          (100,000)          (114,321)  .................          (+14,321)
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)...          (100,000)          (100,000)          (100,000)  .................  .................
            Site loans (sec. 524)........................            (5,152)            (5,152)            (5,152)  .................  .................
            Credit sales of acquired property............           (16,930)            (7,503)           (12,824)           (-4,106)           (+5,321)
            Self-help housing land development fund......            (5,000)            (5,000)            (5,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations.................        (4,251,717)        (4,575,052)        (4,594,694)         (+342,977)          (+19,642)
                  Emergency appropriations...............           (11,000)  .................  .................          (-11,000)  .................

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family (sec. 502).....................           114,100             93,830             93,830            -20,270   .................
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-            (1,182)  .................  .................           (-1,182)  .................
                 31).....................................
                Unsubsidized guaranteed..................             2,700             19,520             19,520            +16,820   .................
            Housing repair (sec. 504)....................             8,808              9,900              9,900             +1,092   .................
                Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-              (352)  .................  .................             (-352)  .................
                 31).....................................
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)...             2,320                480                480             -1,840   .................
            Farm labor (sec. 514)........................            10,406             11,308             11,308               +902   .................
            Rental housing (sec. 515)....................            55,160             39,680             45,363             -9,797             +5,683
            Site loans (sec. 524)........................                17                  4                  4                -13   .................
            Credit sales of acquired property............             3,492                874              1,499             -1,993               +625
            Self-help housing land development fund......               282                281                281                 -1   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies......................           197,285            175,877            182,185            -15,100             +6,308
                  Emergency appropriations...............            (1,534)  .................  .................           (-1,534)  .................

        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RHS)...           360,785            383,879            360,785   .................           -23,094

        Rental assistance program:
            (Sec. 521)...................................           577,497            434,100            634,100            +56,603           +200,000
            (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))..........................             5,900              5,900              5,900   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...................................           583,397            440,000            640,000            +56,603           +200,000

            Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001......  .................           200,000   .................  .................          -200,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental assistance program...........           583,397            640,000            640,000            +56,603   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund........         1,141,467          1,199,756          1,182,970            +41,503            -16,786
                  Emergency appropriations...............            (1,534)  .................  .................           (-1,534)  .................
                  (Loan authorization)...................        (4,251,717)        (4,575,052)        (4,594,694)         (+342,977)          (+19,642)
                  (Emergency appropriations).............           (11,000)  .................  .................          (-11,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help housing grants..................            26,000             30,000             26,000   .................            -4,000
    Rural housing assistance grants......................            41,000             54,000             41,000   .................           -13,000
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).....            (1,000)  .................  .................           (-1,000)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, grants and payments..................            67,000             84,000             67,000   .................           -17,000
              Emergency appropriations...................            (1,000)  .................  .................           (-1,000)  .................

    RHS expenses:
        Salaries and expenses............................            60,978             61,979             60,978   .................            -1,001
        (Transfer from RHIF).............................          (360,785)          (383,879)          (360,785)  .................          (-23,094)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RHS expenses............................          (421,763)          (445,858)          (421,763)  .................          (-24,095)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Housing Service...................         1,269,445          1,345,735          1,310,948            +41,503            -34,787
              Emergency appropriations...................             2,534   .................  .................            -2,534   .................
              (Loan authorization).......................        (4,251,717)        (4,575,052)        (4,594,694)         (+342,977)          (+19,642)
              Emergency appropriations...................           (11,000)  .................  .................          (-11,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization).............................           (33,000)           (52,495)           (38,256)           (+5,256)          (-14,239)
        Loan subsidy.....................................            16,615             22,799             16,615   .................            -6,184
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RBCS).......             3,482              3,337              3,337               -145   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development Loan Fund.............            20,097             26,136             19,952               -145             -6,184

    Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization).............................           (15,000)           (15,000)           (15,000)  .................  .................
        Direct subsidy...................................             3,783              3,453              3,453               -330   .................

    Rural cooperative development grants.................             3,300              9,000              5,500             +2,200             -3,500

    RBCS expenses:
        Salaries and expenses............................            25,680             24,612             25,680   .................            +1,068
        (Transfer from RDLFP)............................            (3,482)            (3,337)            (3,337)             (-145)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RBCS expenses...........................           (29,162)           (27,949)           (29,017)             (-145)           (+1,068)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service......            52,860             63,201             54,585             +1,725             -8,616

              (By transfer)..............................            (3,482)            (3,337)            (3,337)             (-145)  .................
              (Loan authorization).......................           (48,000)           (67,495)           (53,256)           (+5,256)          (-14,239)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Alternative Agricultural Research and                             3,500             10,000              3,500   .................            -6,500
     Commercialization Revolving  Fund...................

Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans
     Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Direct loans:
                Electric 5%..............................           (71,500)           (50,000)           (71,500)  .................          (+21,500)
                Telecommunications 5%....................           (75,000)           (50,000)           (75,000)  .................          (+25,000)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal...............................          (146,500)          (100,000)          (146,500)  .................          (+46,500)

            Treasury rates: Telecommunications...........          (300,000)          (300,000)          (300,000)  .................  .................
            Muni-rate: Electric..........................          (295,000)          (250,000)          (295,000)  .................          (+45,000)

            FFB loans:
                Electric, regular........................          (700,000)          (300,000)          (700,000)  .................         (+400,000)
                Telecommunications.......................          (120,000)          (120,000)          (120,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal...............................          (820,000)          (420,000)          (820,000)  .................         (+400,000)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations.............        (1,561,500)        (1,070,000)        (1,561,500)  .................         (+491,500)

        Loan subsidies:
            Direct loans:
                Electric 5%..............................             9,325                450                643             -8,682               +193
                Telecommunications 5%....................             7,342                560                840             -6,502               +280
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal...............................            16,667              1,010              1,483            -15,184               +473

            Treasury rates: Telecommunications...........               810              2,370              2,370             +1,560   .................
            Muni-rate: Electric..........................            25,842              9,175             10,826            -15,016             +1,651
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies......................            43,319             12,555             14,679            -28,640             +2,124

        RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RUS)..            29,982             31,046             29,982   .................            -1,064
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Electrification and                           73,301             43,601             44,661            -28,640             +1,060
           Telecommunications Loans Program Account......
              (Loan authorization).......................        (1,561,500)        (1,070,000)        (1,561,500)  .................         (+491,500)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
        (Loan authorization).............................          (157,509)          (175,000)          (157,509)  .................          (-17,491)
        Direct loan subsidy..............................             4,174              3,290              2,961             -1,213               -329
        RTP administrative expenses (transfer to RUS)....             3,000              3,000              3,000   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..........................................             7,174              6,290              5,961             -1,213               -329

    Distance learning and telemedicine program:
        (Loan authorization).............................          (150,000)          (200,000)          (200,000)          (+50,000)  .................
        Direct loan subsidy..............................               180                700                700               +520   .................
        Grants...........................................            12,500             20,000             12,500   .................            -7,500
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..........................................            12,680             20,700             13,200               +520             -7,500

    RUS expenses:
        Salaries and expenses............................            33,000             34,107             33,000   .................            -1,107
        (Transfer from RETLP)............................           (29,982)           (31,046)           (29,982)  .................           (-1,064)
        (Transfer from RTP)..............................            (3,000)            (3,000)            (3,000)  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RUS expenses............................           (65,982)           (68,153)           (65,982)  .................           (-2,171)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Rural Utilities Service.................           126,155            104,698             96,822            -29,333             -7,876
              (By transfer)..............................           (32,982)           (34,046)           (32,982)  .................           (-1,064)
              (Loan authorization).......................        (1,869,009)        (1,445,000)        (1,919,009)          (+50,000)         (+474,009)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community          2,175,234          2,194,349          2,184,449             +9,215             -9,900
           Development Programs..........................
                  Appropriations.........................        (2,175,234)        (1,994,349)        (2,184,449)           (+9,215)         (+190,100)
                  Emergency appropriations...............           (32,534)  .................  .................          (-32,534)  .................
                  Advance appropriations.................  .................          (200,000)  .................  .................         (-200,000)
              (By transfer)..............................          (397,249)          (421,262)          (397,104)             (-145)          (-24,158)
              (Loan authorization).......................        (6,168,726)        (6,087,547)        (6,566,959)         (+398,233)         (+479,412)
              (Emergency appropriations).................           (11,000)  .................  .................          (-11,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and                   554                576                554   .................               -22
 Consumer Services.......................................

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs.............................         4,128,747          4,620,768          4,611,829           +483,082             -8,939
        Transfer from section 32.........................         5,048,150          4,929,268          4,935,199           -112,951             +5,931
        Discretionary spending...........................  .................            15,000             13,000            +13,000             -2,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs................         9,176,897          9,565,036          9,560,028           +383,131             -5,008

    Special supplemental nutrition program for women,             3,924,000          4,105,495          4,038,107           +114,107            -67,388
     infants, and children (WIC).........................

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses.........................................        21,159,106         20,109,444         20,098,744         -1,060,362            -10,700
        Reserve..........................................           100,000          1,000,000            100,000   .................          -900,000
        Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.............         1,236,000          1,268,000          1,268,000            +32,000   .................
        Discretionary spending...........................  .................             7,000   .................  .................            -7,000
        The emergency food assistance program............            90,000            100,000             97,000             +7,000             -3,000
        Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001..........  .................         4,800,000   .................  .................        -4,800,000
        Rescission (Public Law 106-31)...................        -1,250,000   .................  .................        +1,250,000   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp program......................        21,335,106         27,284,444         21,563,744           +228,638         -5,720,700
              Appropriations.............................       (21,335,106)       (27,284,444)       (21,563,744)         (+228,638)       (-5,720,700)
              Rescissions................................       (-1,250,000)  .................  .................       (+1,250,000)  .................

    Commodity assistance program.........................           131,000            155,215            131,000   .................           -24,215

    Food donations programs:
        Needy family program.............................             1,081              1,081              1,081   .................  .................
        Elderly feeding program..........................           140,000            150,000            140,000   .................           -10,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food donations programs.................           141,081            151,081            141,081   .................           -10,000

    Food program administration..........................           108,561            119,841            111,561             +3,000             -8,280
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Nutrition Service..................        34,816,645         41,381,112         35,545,521           +728,876         -5,835,591
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs............        34,817,199         41,381,688         35,546,075           +728,876         -5,835,613
          Appropriations.................................       (36,067,199)       (36,581,688)       (35,546,075)         (-521,124)       (-1,035,613)
          Rescissions....................................       (-1,250,000)  .................  .................       (+1,250,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
     TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager:
    Direct appropriation.................................           136,203            137,768            136,203   .................            -1,565
    (Transfer from export loans).........................            (3,231)            (3,413)            (3,231)  .................             (-182)
    (Transfer from Public Law 480).......................            (1,035)            (1,093)            (1,035)  .................              (-58)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Program level...........................          (140,469)          (142,274)          (140,469)  .................           (-1,805)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
    Title I--Credit sales:
        Program level....................................          (219,724)          (150,324)          (159,089)          (-60,635)           (+8,765)
            Direct loans.................................          (203,475)          (138,324)          (142,840)          (-60,635)           (+4,516)
            Ocean freight differential...................            16,249             12,000             16,249   .................            +4,249
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level....................................          (837,000)          (787,000)          (787,000)          (-50,000)  .................
            Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).          (149,200)  .................  .................         (-149,200)  .................
        Appropriation....................................           837,000            787,000            787,000            -50,000   .................
            Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31).          (149,200)  .................  .................         (-149,200)  .................
    Title III--Commodity grants:
        Program level....................................           (25,000)  .................  .................          (-25,000)  .................
        Appropriation....................................            25,000   .................  .................           -25,000   .................
    Loan subsidies.......................................           176,596            114,062            117,786            -58,810             +3,724

    Salaries and expenses:
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)..........             1,035              1,093              1,035   .................               -58
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............               815                845                815   .................               -30
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.......................................             1,850              1,938              1,850   .................               -88
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level..............................        (1,081,724)          (937,324)          (946,089)         (-135,635)           (+8,765)
                  (Emergency appropriations).............          (149,200)  .................  .................         (-149,200)  .................
              Appropriation..............................         1,056,695            915,000            922,885           -133,810             +7,885
                  (Emergency appropriations).............          (149,200)  .................  .................         (-149,200)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative
 expenses):
    Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)..........             3,231              3,413              3,231   .................              -182
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............               589                672                589   .................               -83
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account........             3,820              4,085              3,820   .................              -265
                                                          ==============================================================================================
          Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related          1,196,718          1,056,853          1,062,908           -133,810             +6,055
           Programs......................................
              Appropriations.............................        (1,196,718)        (1,056,853)        (1,062,908)         (-133,810)           (+6,055)
              Emergency appropriations...................          (149,200)  .................  .................         (-149,200)  .................
              (By transfer)..............................            (4,266)            (4,506)            (4,266)  .................             (-240)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    TITLE VI--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
                         AGENCIES

         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

               Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation..............           970,867          1,109,950          1,035,538            +64,671            -74,412
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act.......................          (132,273)          (145,434)          (145,434)          (+13,161)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................        (1,103,140)        (1,255,384)        (1,180,972)          (+77,832)          (-74,412)

    Limitation on payments to GSA........................           (82,866)          (100,180)          (100,180)          (+17,314)  .................

Buildings and facilities.................................            11,350             31,750              8,350             -3,000            -23,400
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug Administration................           982,217          1,141,700          1,043,888            +61,671            -97,812
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm Credit             2,565   .................  .................            -2,565   .................
 System Financial Assistance Corporation.................

                   INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.....................            61,000             67,655             61,000   .................            -6,655
    Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............              (356)  .................  .................             (-356)  .................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative            (35,800)  .................  .................          (-35,800)  .................
 expenses)...............................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug         1,046,138          1,209,355          1,104,888            +58,750           -104,467
       Administration....................................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships.......................................  .................  .................             3,000             +3,000             +3,000
Sec. 388 Fair Act--NH....................................  .................  .................               250               +250               +250
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title VII, General provisions...............  .................  .................             3,250             +3,250             +3,250
                                                          ==============================================================================================
 TITLE XI--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS (PUBLIC LAW 105-277)

                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary (cotton warehouse) (emergency                (5,000)  .................  .................           (-5,000)  .................
 appropriations).........................................
Pilot livestock price reporting study (emergency                       (250)  .................  .................             (-250)  .................
 appropriations).........................................

            Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Federal crop insurance corporation fund:
    Purchase requirement (emergency appropriations)......           (66,000)  .................  .................          (-66,000)  .................
    Raisins (emergency appropriations)...................            (3,000)  .................  .................           (-3,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
               Commodity Credit Corporation

Natural disasters (emergency appropriations).............        (1,500,000)  .................  .................       (-1,500,000)  .................
Multi-year losses (emergency appropriations).............          (875,000)  .................  .................         (-875,000)  .................
Livestock disaster assistance fund (emergency                      (200,000)  .................  .................         (-200,000)  .................
 appropriations).........................................
Market loss (emergency appropriations)...................        (3,057,000)  .................  .................       (-3,057,000)  .................
Economic loss (Alaska) (emergency appropriations)........           (50,000)  .................  .................          (-50,000)  .................
Honey (emergency appropriations).........................            (1,000)  .................  .................           (-1,000)  .................
Mohair fiber (emergency appropriations)..................           (27,000)  .................  .................          (-27,000)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Commodity Credit Corporation................        (5,779,000)  .................  .................       (-5,779,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
  Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

Food for progress (emergency appropriations).............           (25,000)  .................  .................          (-25,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title XI, emergency appropriations..........        (5,809,250)  .................  .................       (-5,809,250)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
TITLE XIII--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS (PUBLIC LAW 105-277)

                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                   Farm Service Agency

Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations).........           (40,000)  .................  .................          (-40,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
    Loan authorizations:
        Farm operating loans:
            Direct.......................................          (233,806)  .................  .................         (-233,806)  .................
            Guaranteed unsubsidized......................          (150,000)  .................  .................         (-150,000)  .................
            Guaranteed subsidized........................          (156,704)  .................  .................         (-156,704)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations.................          (540,510)  .................  .................         (-540,510)  .................

    Loan subsidies:
        Farm operating loans (emergency appropriations):
            Direct.......................................           (15,969)  .................  .................          (-15,969)  .................
            Guaranteed unsubsidized......................            (1,740)  .................  .................           (-1,740)  .................
            Guaranteed subsidized........................           (13,696)  .................  .................          (-13,696)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund..            31,405   .................  .................           -31,405   .................
                  (Loan authorization)...................          (540,510)  .................  .................         (-540,510)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              Total, Farm Service Agency.................            71,405   .................  .................           -71,405   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
               Commodity Credit Corporation

Dairy production disaster assistance program (emergency              (3,000)  .................  .................           (-3,000)  .................
 appropriations).........................................

          Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forestry incentives program (emergency appropriations)...           (10,000)  .................  .................          (-10,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title XIII, emergency appropriations........           (84,405)  .................  .................          (-84,405)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Grand total:
          New budget (obligational) authority............        54,510,359         66,883,182         60,710,118         +6,199,759         -6,173,064
              Appropriations.............................       (55,713,835)       (61,883,182)       (60,710,118)       (+4,996,283)       (-1,173,064)
              Emergency appropriations...................        (6,639,751)  .................  .................       (-6,639,751)  .................
              Advance appropriations.....................  .................        (5,000,000)  .................  .................       (-5,000,000)
              Rescissions................................       (-1,250,000)  .................  .................       (+1,250,000)  .................
              Rescission of Emergency Appropriations.....          (-22,466)  .................  .................          (+22,466)  .................
          (By transfer)..................................          (612,780)          (681,569)          (612,635)             (-145)          (-68,934)
          (Loan authorization)...........................        (8,453,684)        (9,096,281)        (9,650,251)       (+1,196,567)         (+553,970)
              Emergency appropriations...................        (1,795,710)  .................  .................       (-1,795,710)  .................
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)........          (144,087)          (108,287)          (108,287)          (-35,800)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                      RECAPITULATION

Title I--Agricultural programs...........................        14,481,998         20,174,117         20,000,476         +5,518,478           -173,641
Title II--Conservation programs..........................           793,072            866,820            808,072            +15,000            -58,748
Title III--Rural economic and community development               2,175,234          2,194,349          2,184,449             +9,215             -9,900
 programs................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs.........................        34,817,199         41,381,688         35,546,075           +728,876         -5,835,613
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs.........         1,196,718          1,056,853          1,062,908           -133,810             +6,055
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug                      1,046,138          1,209,355          1,104,888            +58,750           -104,467
 Administration..........................................
Title VII--General provisions............................  .................  .................             3,250             +3,250             +3,250
Title XI--Emergency Appropriations (Public Law 105-277)..        (5,809,250)  .................  .................       (-5,809,250)  .................
Title XIII--Emergency Appropriations (Public Law 105-277)           (84,405)  .................  .................          (-84,405)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, new budget (obligational) authority.........        54,510,359         66,883,182         60,710,118         +6,199,759         -6,173,064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.


                                 
