[Senate Report 108-107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 216
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    108-107

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



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
                                _______
                                

                 July 17, 2003.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany S. 1427]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for 
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1427) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2004

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $77,403,914,000
Amount of 2003 appropriations acts to date..............  74,724,290,000
Amount of estimates, 2004...............................  77,561,060,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Over the appropriations provided in 2003............   2,679,624,000
    Under the estimates for 2004........................     157,146,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary of the Bill:
    Overview and Summary of the Bill.............................     5
Government Performance and Results Act...........................     5
Title I--Agricultural Programs:
    Production, Processing, and Marketing:
        Office of the Secretary..................................     9
        Executive operations.....................................    12
        Office of the Chief Information Officer..................    13
        Common computing environment.............................    14
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer....................    14
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.......    16
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.....    17
        Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.    17
        Hazardous waste management...............................    18
        Departmental administration..............................    19
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
          Relations..............................................    20
        Office of Communications.................................    20
        Office of Inspector General..............................    20
        Office of the General Counsel............................    21
        Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
          and Economics..........................................    21
        Economic Research Service................................    22
        National Agricultural Statistics Service.................    23
        Agricultural Research Service............................    23
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
          Service................................................    52
        Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
          Regulatory Programs....................................    64
        Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...............    65
        Agricultural Marketing Service...........................    75
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..    79
        Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............    80
        Food Safety and Inspection Service.......................    81
        Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
          Agricultural Services..................................    82
        Farm Service Agency......................................    83
        Risk Management Agency...................................    87
    Corporations:
        Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund..................    89
        Commodity Credit Corporation fund........................    90
Title II--Conservation Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
      Environment................................................    93
    Natural Resources Conservation Service.......................    94
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and 
      Community Development......................................   106
    Rural Community Advancement Program..........................   107
    Rural Housing Service........................................   114
    Rural Business--Cooperative Service..........................   119
    Rural Utilities Service......................................   122
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 
      Consumer Services..........................................   127
    Food and Nutrition Service...................................   128
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign 
  Agricultural Service...........................................   141
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
    Food and Drug Administration.................................   149
    Independent Agencies
        Commodity Futures Trading Commission.....................   159
        Farm Credit Administration...............................   159
Title VII--General Provisions:
    General Provisions...........................................   161
    Program, Project, and Activity...............................   161
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   162
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   162
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   163
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   164

                           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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2004 Committee
                                         2003 \1\        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....    $25,458,395,000    $26,776,681,000
Title II: Conservation programs...      1,021,263,000        973,201,000
Title III: Rural economic and           2,777,020,000      2,587,826,000
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     41,890,607,000     44,088,309,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and         1,836,791,000      1,486,821,000
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........      1,466,505,000      1,482,596,000
Title VII: General provisions.....        273,709,000          8,480,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                74,724,290,000     77,403,914,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations.


                    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 assistance programs; rural economic 
and community development activities, and telecommunications 
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].
    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 allocation for fiscal year 2004.
    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 has encouraged the consideration of grant and 
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects 
the Department only to approve those applications judged 
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

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

               Federal Employees Compensation Act [FECA]

    The President's budget includes a legislative proposal to 
allow the Department of Labor [DOL] to charge agencies for 
administrative costs related to FECA benefits paid to 
employees. Currently, although DOL bills agencies for FECA 
benefits, it does not bill agencies for the costs of 
administering these benefits.
    The President's budget includes the administrative costs in 
each agency's budget, as opposed to the DOL budget, where the 
funds have previously been appropriated. The Committee's 
recommendation, however, assumes that this proposal will not be 
enacted into law, and excludes these administrative costs.

              Display of Fiscal Year 2003 Spending Levels

    Section 601 of Division O of Public Law 108-7, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, imposed, with few 
exceptions, a rescission of 0.65 percent of the budget 
authority provided (or obligation limitation imposed) for all 
discretionary accounts in Divisions A through K of that joint 
resolution. Division A of Public Law 108-7 provided 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.
    The 0.65 percent rescission applied to all discretionary 
accounts of Division A with the exception of the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC], and for levels of budget authority provided through the 
collection of user fees. Accordingly, all fiscal year 2003 
spending levels displayed in this report for which the 0.65 
percent rescission did apply reflect the 0.65 percent 
rescission. Further adjustments to fiscal year 2003 levels are 
detailed by footnotes where applicable.
    In addition, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-296), the President's budget proposes the 
transfer of certain USDA and FDA resources to the Department of 
Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. These proposed transfers 
are listed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA:
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
        Salaries and Expenses:
            Agricultural Quarantine Inspection--             $31,472,000
             Appropriated.............................
            Agricultural Quarantine Inspection--User         178,647,000
             Fees.....................................
            Plum Island--Operations Support...........         4,305,000
            Plum Island--Diagnostics performed by USDA         2,252,000
                                                       -----------------
              Total, APHIS............................       216,676,000
                                                       =================
    Agricultural Research Service:
        Salaries and Expenses:
            Plum Island--Operations Support...........         5,363,000
            Plum Island--Research performed by USDA...         3,785,000
                                                       -----------------
              Total, ARS..............................         9,148,000
                                                       =================
    Staff Offices:
        Office of the Secretary/Executive Operations..            70,000
        Departmental Administration...................           219,000
        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities..........         8,624,000
        Office of Communications......................            50,000
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer.........            40,000
        Office of the Chief Information Officer.......           159,000
        Office of General Counsel.....................            89,000
        Office of the Inspector General...............           199,000
        Office of Budget and Program Analysis.........            40,000
                                                       -----------------
          Total, Staff Offices........................         9,490,000
                                                       =================
          Total, USDA Transfers to DHS................       235,314,000
FDA:
    Salaries and Expenses.............................           583,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total Transfers to DHS..........................       235,897,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Displays in this report of the fiscal year 2003 funding 
levels for these activities have been reduced to provide an 
accurate presentation of USDA and FDA activities during fiscal 
year 2003 in comparison to those proposed by the President for 
fiscal year 2004.
    Further adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 levels are 
detailed by footnotes where applicable.

                     User Fee Legislative Proposals

    The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes legislative 
proposals to authorize the collection and expenditure of user 
fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee. These agencies include: the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration; the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service; and the Food and Drug Administration. Assumed fiscal 
year 2004 revenues from these fees total $164,000,000, of which 
only $5,000,000 would have no effect on current services. The 
fiscal year 2004 budget assumes the collection and expenditure 
of these fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal year 2004 
spending for this subcommittee by an additional $159,000,000 
from current levels.
    Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the 
Senate lies with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, not the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the 
U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate 
in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these 
proposals are held to be revenue measures (for which similar 
proposals in the past have), unilateral action by the Senate in 
this matter risks violation of Constitutional principles.
    This Committee again admonishes the administration for 
including in an annual budget request to the Appropriations 
Committee legislative proposals for which this Committee has no 
jurisdiction, proposals which have budgetary implications, and 
which raise possible Constitutional points of order. The 
Committee notes that similar proposals by this and past 
administrations have not met approval by the authorizing 
committees and there is no evidence to indicate that these 
proposals will meet with any greater success.
    The Committee included a General Provision (Section 723) in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 
(Division A of Public Law 108-7) which requires the President 
to identify reductions from his fiscal year 2004 budget 
submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees 
has not been enacted prior to the convening of a committee on 
conference for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act. 
Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public Law 108-7, the 
Committee expects compliance with Section 723, and urges the 
administration identify these reductions as soon as possible.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $3,368,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      10,068,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,046,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $10,046,000. The Committee includes 
$6,604,000 for cross-cutting trade negotiations and 
biotechnology resources. This amount is $6,678,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    Drought Mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack 
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought 
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and 
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Long term 
drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example, 
have resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling below 
50 percent of normal supply. The report of the National Drought 
Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century'', 
recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness 
Act. Such an act would establish a Federal/non-Federal 
partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for 
implementing a national drought policy. The Committee expects 
the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the National 
Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide 
a response to drought-stricken areas in as prompt and 
meaningful a way as possible.
    Administrative Convergence.--The Secretary is expected to 
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or 
reduction of any administrative or information technology 
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any 
other agency of the Department.
    Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Secretary, 
after consultation with the Administrator of Environmental 
Protection, the Administrator of General Services, and 
Secretary of Commerce (acting through the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology) shall prepare 
and from time to time revise guidelines for the use of 
procuring agencies in complying with the requirements of Public 
Law 107-171, section 9002. The Secretary shall also work to 
carry out all other requirements of section 9002.
    Helena, Arkansas Training Center.--In the fiscal year 2003 
Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional 
Record, pages S356-S410, the Secretary was requested to 
investigate and report to this Committee on an opportunity to 
utilize property in Helena, Arkansas, for USDA training 
activities and other Department-wide functions. The Committee 
has not received such a report, but expects full compliance 
with congressional directives. The Secretary is requested to 
proceed with an investigation into use of this property for 
USDA functions and to prepare a feasibility report which will 
include costs and savings to the Department for utilization of 
this facility. The Committee expects a preliminary report by 
December 1, 2003 and a full report on this subject no later 
than March 1, 2004.
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--Section 2003 of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides the 
Secretary direction in the allocation of certain conservation 
resources in the area of partnerships and cooperation with non-
Federal entities to help meet environmental objectives. 
Legislative history clearly shows a need for attention in 
connection with the Chesapeake Bay. In the context of this 
authority, the Committee is aware of interests by governors, 
mayors, and other non-Federal officials in seeking USDA 
assistance through Section 2003 in support of the Chesapeake 
Bay Working Lands Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, for which 
an application has been submitted to the Department. The 
Committee urges the Secretary to take action on this 
application and report to the Committee on the means by which 
USDA will utilize the authorities of section 2003 toward 
improved conservation of the Chesapeake Bay.
    Homeland Security.--The President's budget includes a 
number of requests for increases related to homeland security. 
The Committee notes that as of the preparation of this report 
$54,000,000 remains available from previous appropriations 
specifically for homeland security needs, of which $19,000,000 
is available to the Secretary. The Committee believes these 
resources, in addition to funds provided in this Act, will be 
sufficient for these needs.
    Animal Health and Food Safety.--The Committee supports the 
development of the Collaboration in Animal Health, Food Safety 
and Epidemiology [CAHFSE]. This collaboration represents a high 
level of coordination among the Agricultural Research Service, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service to develop a comprehensive effort to 
address animal health and food safety issues, including those 
attributable to antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens. It 
is expected that this collaboration will yield information 
regarding the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, the 
development of resistance patterns, and interventions to reduce 
the development and potential transfer of resistance. The 
effort also will further enable USDA to identify and track 
emerging diseases, whether natural or intentionally introduced, 
and implement mitigation strategies. The Committee encourages 
the Department to propose adequate funding levels for the 
future growth and success of this program.
    Plum Island Research and Diagnostic Activities.--The 
President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes continuing 
transfers for certain USDA activities to the Department of 
Homeland Security [DHS], including $2,135,000 from APHIS for 
diagnostic activities and $5,668,000 from ARS for research. The 
Committee is concerned that this transfer of funding may result 
in a shift in focus away from agriculture, and fully expects 
the Secretary of Agriculture to seek assurances from the 
Secretary of Homeland Security that these diagnostic and 
research activities will firmly remain tied to agricultural 
interests.
    Alternative Fuels.--The continuing development of bio-based 
energy products, such as E-85 capable vehicle technologies, 
provides economic and environmental opportunities for producers 
of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should 
use resources of the Department toward educational and 
infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these 
products in Minnesota and other States.
    Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.--The 
Committee notes that the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) included a provision mandating 
that the Department of Agriculture submit a report on 
geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The 
Committee is aware that the Department has failed to submit the 
report within 1 year of the date of enactment. Given the 
significant transportation barriers which currently exist and 
the necessity for ensuring that geographically disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers can fully participate in agricultural 
programs, the Department shall submit their report no later 
than January 15, 2004.
    Renewable Energy.--The Committee commends the Secretary for 
the Department's efforts in support of biofuels and renewable 
energy programs. However, the Committee is concerned that while 
the Department is involved with research and development, 
marketing activities, and financial assistance for the 
production of these energy sources, the efforts appear to lack 
effective coordination across individual agency lines. The 
Committee urges the Secretary to establish an integrated 
program from farm gate to fuel pump to maximize producers' 
ability to take advantage of this renewable and sustainable 
energy industry, and to identify an individual responsible for 
the coordination and evaluation of these activities.
    Economic Losses.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
utilize the authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to provide assistance to compensate United States 
entities that export United States beef to be processed in 
Canada for re-importation to the United States that suffered 
economic losses as a direct result of the BSE-related border 
closing between the United States and Canada. The Committee is 
aware of the need to compensate an entity for such losses in 
Minnesota.

                          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, the Office 
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security 
Staff.

                            CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $8,510,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      12,264,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,707,000

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture 
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 $8,707,000. This amount is $197,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $13,670,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      14,242,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,997,000

    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 
$13,997,000. This amount is $327,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $7,270,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       7,980,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,544,000

    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; and 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 $7,544,000. This amount is $274,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      $1,479,000
Committee recommendation................................         910,000

\1\ $2,643,000 was provided by the homeland security supplemental, 
Public Law 107-117, under the Office of the Secretary for this activity.

    The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency 
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of 
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of 
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency 
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments 
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters, 
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil 
emergency planning and related activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends 
$910,000. This activity was funded in fiscal year 2003 under 
the Office of the Secretary. This appropriation will provide 
adequate funding to maintain these activities in fiscal year 
2004.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $14,993,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      31,334,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,710,000

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established 
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer 
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy 
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the 
Department's information management and information technology 
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and 
is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. 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 $15,710,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $717,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not 
include an increase of $2,000 for FECA administrative charges, 
as requested in the budget.
    The Committee has included $500,000 for the Chief 
Information Officer to study the feasibility of utilizing a 
non-Federal entity to provide electronic storage of data 
related to USDA food safety programs and using the facility for 
food safety information management.

                      Common Computing Environment

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $132,289,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     177,714,000
Committee recommendation................................     119,289,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $119,289,000 for the Common 
Computing Environment. This amount is $13,000,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $5,496,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       7,902,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,496,000

    The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible 
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer 
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and 
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all 
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, 
and performance measurement activities within the Department. 
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation 
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working 
Capital Fund. 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 $5,496,000. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include an 
increase of $41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    Financial Management.--The Committee was pleased to learn 
that for the first time the Department of Agriculture received 
a clean audit in fiscal year 2002. This is a major 
accomplishment. The Committee wishes to express support for the 
effort necessary to reach this milestone, and encourages the 
Department to continue to make financial management a priority.
    National Finance Center.--The Committee supports the 
President's e-government initiative goals to improve the 
performance and reduce the cost of Federal Government 
administration by using commercially available e-business best 
practices for functions that are not inherently governmental. 
The ongoing e-payroll/Human Resources [HR] consolidation and 
integration of HR and payroll systems across the government 
provides a prime example of how e-government can improve 
service and efficiency that will create several hundred million 
dollars of savings to Federal organizations.
    The Committee has been informed that the Department of 
Agriculture's National Finance Center [NFC] proposal for e-
payroll consolidation was rated the highest in the internal 
competition held by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] 
and the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. The Committee 
recognizes that the payroll consolidation will require 
significant capital investment for information technology and 
infrastructure required to provide the new consolidated e-
payroll function. The Committee believes that the NFC's 
demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service while 
operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial 
industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a 
public/private partnership to provide private sector investment 
and shared risk in the modernization of systems and 
infrastructure creation for e-payroll at the NFC. The Committee 
encourages the Department of Agriculture to work with OMB and 
OPM to investigate the feasibility of creating a public/private 
partnership to help leverage scarce Federal resources to 
continue the modernization and development of Federal 
Government-wide e-payroll functions.

                          Working Capital Fund

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $11,922,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944 
Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services 
in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and 
other visual information services, art and graphics, video 
services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized 
automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and 
related services, voucher payments services, and ADP systems. 
The National Finance Center's expenses are also funded through 
this fund.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The President's budget does not request and the Committee 
does not provide an appropriation to the Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee again includes a General Provision (Section 
704) which provides authority for the Secretary to transfer 
unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the 
Working Capital Fund. This authority should be sufficient to 
meet fiscal year 2004 needs.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $397,000
Budget Estimate, 2004...................................         808,000
Committee recommendation................................         794,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and 
related functions. This includes coordination of the 
administration of civil rights laws and regulations for 
employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in 
programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil 
rights laws.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $794,000. This 
amount is $397,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................     $15,090,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................      17,550,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,445,000

\1\ Included in the Departmental Administration account.

    The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership 
responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities. 
These activities include employment opportunity as well as 
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis, 
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for 
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable 
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and 
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA 
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The 
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, 
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners 
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all 
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through 
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $15,445,000. This amount is $355,000 more than 
fiscal year 2003, which was included within the Departmental 
Administration account. This amount includes $405,000 for pay 
costs.
    This appropriation is provided separately from that of 
Departmental Administration to reflect the reorganization of 
the civil rights functions in the Department of Agriculture. 
Pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
USDA has established the position of the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights, and has realigned the Office of Civil Rights 
from Departmental Administration.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $656,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         793,000
Committee recommendation................................         673,000

    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 $673,000. This amount 
is $17,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $186,878,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     199,332,000
Committee recommendation................................     188,022,000

    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.
    The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to 
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the 
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to 
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial 
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review 
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an 
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
    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 1999, 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, DC, 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, DC. 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. In fiscal year 1999, USDA 
began operations at the Beltsville Office Facility.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities 
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the 
Committee recommends $188,022,000. This amount is $1,144,000 
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2003 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2004 budget      Committee
                                                                   2003 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments.................................................         120,795         123,910         123,910
Building Operations.............................................          32,327          41,445          32,559
Strategic Space Plan............................................          33,756          33,977          31,553
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
  Total.........................................................         186,878         199,332         188,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Hazardous Materials Management

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $15,583,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      15,713,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,611,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $15,611,000 for hazardous 
materials management. This amount is $28,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $37,628,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      45,128,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,031,000

    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, ethics, 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 and Judicial Officer. 
Departmental administration also provides administrative 
support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an 
independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates 
contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as 
a reimbursable activity.
    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 $23,031,000. This amount is $14,597,000 
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does 
not include $21,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    Pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, USDA has established the position of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights, and has realigned the Office of 
Civil Rights from Departmental Administration. At the request 
of USDA, the Committee has created a new account, the Office of 
Civil Rights, to reflect this realignment which has resulted in 
a reduction in the Departmental Administration account.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $3,781,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       4,186,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,825,000

    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 
$3,825,000. This amount is $44,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation.
    The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to 
support congressional relations' activities at the agency 
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency, 
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution 
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these 
transfers.

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $9,031,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      10,084,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,228,000

    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 $9,228,000. This amount is $197,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $73,416,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      81,895,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,781,000

    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, and 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 Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $75,781,000. This amount is 
$2,365,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This 
amount does not include $70,000 for FECA administrative 
charges, as requested in the budget. The Committee provides an 
increase of $800,000 for OIG to address violations of the 
Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate with State and local law 
enforcement personnel in this effort.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $34,700,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      37,328,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,343,000

    The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal 
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all 
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The 
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; 
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights 
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime 
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in 
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial 
proceedings and litigation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $35,343,000. This amount is 
$643,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This 
amount does not include $6,000 for FECA administrative charges, 
as requested in the budget.

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

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $580,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         792,000
Committee recommendation................................         596,000

    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 $596,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee is aware of a new crop fiber, Arundo donax, 
that has the potential to replace hardwood fibers in many paper 
grades. The Committee has been apprised of a collaborative 
effort between Auburn University, Washington State University, 
the University of Washington and the pulp and paper industry in 
Washington and Alabama, to test the planting, producing, and 
harvesting of Arundo and to conduct tests to further improve 
the use of the fiber as a raw material for paper pulp. The 
Committee encourages the Department to support researching 
optimal growing techniques for Arundo in Eastern Washington and 
expand Auburn University's research from the test plot level to 
commercial sale. The Committee also encourages further tests to 
improve the paper manufacturing process. The Committee 
recognizes the economic potential of this crop to rural 
communities and understands that the research project will 
include a strong focus on demonstrating the economic viability 
of this new crop.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $68,674,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      76,657,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,902,000

    The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 
other social science information and analysis for public and 
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and 
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 $69,902,000. This amount is $1,228,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not 
include $11,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested 
in the budget.
    The Committee encourages ERS to conduct a study on value-
added products for the wool and lamb industry to identify 
potential products to be marketed by sheep producers.
    The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA 
agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related 
to food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic 
Research Service has particular capacities related to economic 
analysis and modeling. The Food and Nutrition Service has 
longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food 
assistance programs. Given their respective capacities and 
areas of expertise, research dollars at the Department of 
Agriculture are provided to both ERS and FNS. The Committee 
provides $5,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level, 
for studies and evaluations under this account.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $138,448,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     136,182,000
Committee recommendation................................     128,922,000

    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 Service is also responsible for administration of 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.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,922,000. This 
amount is $9,526,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation. This amount does not include $4,000 for FECA 
administrative charges, as requested in the budget. The 
Committee provides $4,800,000 for Agricultural estimates, as 
requested. Also included in this amount is $25,279,000 for the 
Census of Agriculture, as requested.
    The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and 
Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter 
reporting.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $1,036,779,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     987,303,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,045,533,000

    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 the 
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 Abraham Lincoln 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 
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (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 $1,045,533,000. This is 
$8,754,000 more than the 2003 level. This amount does not 
include $244,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested 
in the budget.
    The Committee recommendation includes $14,078,000 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.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research 
activities. The remaining increase in appropriations from the 
fiscal year 2004 level is to be applied to pay and related cost 
increases to prevent the further erosion of the agency's 
capacity to maintain a viable research program at all research 
locations.
    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 this 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 has included statutory language to return to 
Colorado State University land which was conveyed to the 
Agricultural Research Service on February 1, 1966. This land is 
no longer being used by ARS.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Aerial Application Research.--Aerial application is a 
necessary crop protection tool in farming and permits large 
areas to be covered rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective 
applications of large farming areas. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for expanded ARS aerial 
application research at the College Station, TX, research 
station.
    Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to 
continue work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant 
Species at the National Center for Genome Resources in New 
Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act (Public Law 106-224).
    Agricultural Law, Drake University.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $20,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for 
support of a national center focusing on State and local food 
and agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des 
Moines, Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of 
the center.
    Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a 
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality. 
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest 
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal 
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause 
pulmonary problems to humans. While extensive regulatory 
measures have severely impacted agricultural production 
efficiencies, continuing urban expansion into high production 
regions have exacerbated the need for producers to further 
modify effective production practices to reduce harmful 
emissions.
    The Committee recognizes that expanded research is needed 
to quantify these emissions, determine emission factors, and to 
develop management practices for producers to address this 
problem. The Committee provides ARS an increase of $1,000,000 
over the fiscal year 2003 funding levels for collaborative 
research with Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory 
[SDL] to develop and evaluate sensors, protocols, and 
statistical procedures that accurately measure particulates and 
gaseous emissions from agriculture operations.
    Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products.--The Committee 
is aware that alternative crops and value-added products 
provide potential opportunities to enhance profitability. Niche 
marketing of agriculture products displaying ``identity-
preserved'' traits have received premiums in the marketplace. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for 
alternative and value-added products.
    Animal Vaccines.--The U.S. food animal economy continues to 
be threatened by infectious diseases that can devastate the 
cattle, swine, and poultry industries. Increased research to 
investigate the adverse impacts of diseases on cattle, swine, 
and poultry are critically needed to avoid potential economic 
disasters, such as the spread of food and mouth disease. The 
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for 
collaborative research between ARS and the Universities of 
Connecticut and Missouri to develop more effective animal 
vaccines.
    Animal Waste Treatment.--The Committee understands the need 
for additional research to find new and economical treatments 
to eliminate animal wastes. The ARS research station at 
Florence, SC, is investigating alternative treatments and 
techniques to respond to this major problem in swine 
production. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 over 
fiscal year 2003 for this research.
    Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the fruit research program carried 
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, 
WV, and provides an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 
2003 level for essential staffing to support the station's 
ongoing research to identify new alternatives for chemical 
control of insects, and to develop disease-resistant trees.
    Appalachian Horticulture Research.--Ornamental 
horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops, collectively 
constitute the third most important crop in the United States, 
surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an average estimated 
value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year. Tennessee has a 
vibrant nursery industry and a growing floriculture industry. 
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 
2003 for ARS collaborative research with the University of 
Tennessee and Tennessee State University, including efforts to 
develop resistant genes in dogwoods and other woody 
ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and techniques to 
enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the marketplace.
    Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.--The Committee is 
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised 
beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian 
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The 
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University, 
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle 
farmers. The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from 
the fiscal year 2003 level for this research, which will ensure 
the economic viability of these farmers and conserve and 
protect the region's environment.
    Aquaculture Research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $150,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop grain-
based products for use in fish feeds, human food, and 
industrial products from novel cultivars of barley and oats in 
cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture 
Experiment Station in Hagerman, ID.
    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.
    Arid Lands Research.--The challenges for agricultural 
production and natural resource management in the desert 
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense. 
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the 
remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, sustainable 
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and 
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded 
research in rangeland resource management, irrigated farming 
technology, and environmental horticulture at the Jornada 
Experimental Range Station at Las Cruces, NM.
    Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.--The 
Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and 
health of children from conception through adolescence. The 
Center is leading major research efforts to understand the 
relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and 
lifestyle. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level 
for expanded investigations on these issues.
    Biological Control Research.--The Committee has been 
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been 
taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States 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 2003 level.
    Biomass Crop Production.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level for increased cooperative research 
between ARS and South Dakota State University to further 
investigate the applicability of using a method of fiber 
extrusion to dry and process wet distiller grains from ethanol 
production into high value feed for cattle, as well as 
conversion to increased ethanol production.
    Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Increased research is 
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a 
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for 
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee 
provides an increase of $425,000 from the fiscal year 2003 
level for expanded ARS cooperative research with the 
Biotechnology Foundation.
    Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and 
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for 
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals, 
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology. 
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the 
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the 
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing 
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes 
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and 
analyzed. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level to 
ARS at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in 
genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of biophotonics for 
the imaging of animal physiological processes at the cellular 
level.
    Broiler Production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler 
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net 
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS 
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This 
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of 
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor, 
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental 
controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level 
for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in poultry 
litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing 
mortality in broiler flocks.
    Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of 
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious, 
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested 
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee provides an increase of 
$300,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out research experiments 
to examine the population genetics and biology of Canada 
thistle and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding 
States. The research is to be conducted at the ARS research 
facility at Fargo, ND.
    Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's 
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S. 
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the 
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research 
urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of 
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish 
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A 
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors 
on disease will lead to improved management practices for 
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the comprehensive 
catfish health research program based at the Stoneville, MS, 
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. This Center is 
strategically located in the mid-delta, proximal to the vast 
majority of the U.S. commercial catfish farming acreage and 
already has a critical mass of scientists, facilities, and 
instrumentation addressing the disease issue. Ongoing research 
in genomics and breeding can be expanded to select for fish 
with disease and parasite resistance, but additional 
scientists, including a parasitologist and virologist, are 
required for a comprehensive disease and parasite genetic 
resistance research program.
    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 continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level 
for research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing 
risks to consumers.
    Central Great Plains Research Station.--This is the only 
ARS station conducting research aimed at solving dryland 
production problems in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to 
the Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron, CO, for 
research on extensive crop rotation strategies. Increased 
research will focus on biological diversity to reduce weed, 
disease, and insects inherent in single crop rotation and 
utilize a complete systems approach to quantify comparative 
yield benefits under various rotation schemes.
    Cereal Disease Research.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level to support the core group of scientists 
currently performing research at the Cereal Disease Research 
Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota.
    Children's Nutrition Research Center.--The Children's 
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine, 
Houston, TX, has helped define the role of nutrition in 
children's health, growth, and development; contributed to 
nutritional guidelines used by physicians, parents, and others 
responsible for the care and feeding of children, and is unique 
in it's ability to address a broad array of children's 
nutritional issues. The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for increased 
investigation of the nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing 
women, and children from conception to adolescence, at the 
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX.
    Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--In order to reduce 
livestock losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is 
important to eradicate transmissable spongiform 
encephalopathies [TSE] in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep 
and goats, bovine spongiform encephalopathies [BSE] and chronic 
wasting disease [CWD] of deer and elk are classes of TSE's of 
ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both 
animals and humans. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2003 funding level to the Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman, 
WA, and the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for 
urgent research on CWD.
    Cacao Germplasm.--The Committee is aware of the climatic 
differences encountered in maintaining cacao germplasm at the 
ARS facility in Florida and is also aware of the sharp increase 
in commercial planting of cacao in Hawaii. The Committee 
recommends that ARS consider moving its cacao germplasm 
collection to the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center to 
take advantage of the more compatible cacao growing conditions 
at this location and to provide the applied research support 
needed by Hawaii's emerging chocolate industry.
    Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative 
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important 
economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in 
South Central America and West Africa. As a globally marketable 
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally 
beneficial choice for small farmers and an incentive to Andean 
farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide 
stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily 
by small farmers in the tropics of South Central America and 
West Africa that is also under severe disease pressure which 
threatens the stability of world supply of cocoa and the 
economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to fully realize 
the research potential of coffee and cocoa as alternatives to 
illegal crops.
    Corn Germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in Iowa and 
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, 
livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the 
germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to 
establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the ARS 
Corn Germplasm Research Laboratory at Ames, Iowa for research 
to increase the productivity and genetic diversity of maize 
grown in the United States.
    Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.--Contamination of corn by 
aflatoxin limits corn production in the southern United States. 
Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for 
resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant 
breeding process leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee 
recognizes the progress already made in the discovery and 
transfer of aflatoxin-resistant corn germplasm to commercial 
seed companies as a result of the cooperation between the 
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and 
the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit at Mississippi 
State. The Committee has provided the fiscal year 2003 funding 
level for ARS at Mississippi State to continue this cooperative 
research on the development of corn plants resistant to 
aflatoxin.
    Cotton Genetics Research.--Global competition in the 
textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to 
adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These 
new technologies require higher fiber strength to operate 
resistance to nematodes and insect pests that annually inflict 
significant losses to the cotton industry. There is a need to 
broaden the genetic base of cotton germplasm with fiber 
properties that will meet today's more efficient yarn spinning 
machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host 
resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 level for cotton genetics research.
    Cotton Genomics, Breeding, Variety Development, and Pest 
Resistance.--The Committee recognizes the progress that has 
been made through the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the 
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at 
Stoneville, MS, in the research, development, and transfer of 
improved cotton germplasm to the cotton industry. This 
cooperative research must be accelerated to incorporate new 
genetic material into agronomically-acceptable varieties and to 
transfer reniform nematode and other pest resistance into 
improved cotton lines. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2003 funding level to enhance the public cotton breeding 
program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
    Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee continues funding 
at the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS cotton ginning research.
    Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the 
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 
level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
    Delta Nutrition.--The Committee provides $300,000 for 
nutrition activities through a cooperative agreement with the 
Southern University Center for Food Nutrition and Health 
Promotion in Louisiana. This funding will advance research to 
assess the human health and nutrition status of underserved 
rural communities.
    Ecology of Tamarix.--Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody 
invasive plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming 
large amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like 
willow and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem 
in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western 
States. The Committee is aware of the ARS biocontrol field 
trials on China beetles to eradicate tamarix and provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to accelerate 
research on tamarix control using China beetles and other 
biocontrols, and to expand research on cheat grass at the ARS 
research station in Reno, NV.
    Fish Disease Research.--The development of safe and 
effective vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is 
essential to the growth of the catfish industry. There are 
currently only a number of approved therapeutic compounds 
available for farmers to heal diseases of fish. Vaccinations, 
successful in other animals, appear to be the best means of 
preventing diseases. The Committee provides an increase of 
$100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the ARS 
Fish Disease and Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL, 
for increased research on the development of commercially 
approved vaccines for catfish.
    Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse 
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public 
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent 
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation 
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and 
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for floriculture 
and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical use, improved 
post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease and pest 
resistant flowers and plants, control of root diseases, 
robotics research, and control of run-off from greenhouse and 
nursery operations.
    Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee provides an 
additional $100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for 
increased collaborative research with Purdue University in the 
area of food safety and engineering.
    Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and 
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program 
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants, 
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect 
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and 
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee provides 
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for 
additional research required to develop range and pasture plant 
varieties.
    Forage-Livestock Systems.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to 
ARS to continue a cooperative project with the University of 
Kentucky on tall fescue breeding and improvement efforts to 
develop an enhanced national forage base.
    Formosan Subterranean Termite.--The management of this 
termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This 
termite has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most 
severe infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake 
Charles areas. This insect has caused millions of dollars worth 
of damage with an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New 
Orleans alone. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 
from the fiscal year 2003 level to the Southern Regional 
Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for expanded research 
efforts focusing on improved termite detection systems, 
evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, 
and enhancement of bait technology.
    The Committee also recognizes the University of 
Mississippi's ongoing research and development efforts to 
assist USDA entomologists who are focused on the reduction of 
Formosan subterranean termites. The National Center for 
Physical Acoustics at the University of Mississippi plays a 
unique role in development and application of acoustic 
detection methods for accurately locating Formosan termites in 
structures of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Accurate 
detection is an important aspect in control of these insects. 
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level 
for continued research and development in the use of insect 
acoustics.
    Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory.--The 
Committee recognizes the threat to long-term sustainability of 
the Northern Great Plains range livestock industry from 
infestations of noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and spotted 
knapweed. The objective of the Fort Keogh, MT, station is to 
develop low-input rangeland management strategies that impede 
or control the spread of noxious weeds into native rangelands 
and planted pastures. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2003 level.
    Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged 
sharpshooter [GWSS] and Pierce's disease [PD] inflict on U.S. 
vineyards. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new 
shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to 
curb the spread of GWSS-PD. The Committee provides an increase 
of $450,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Parlier, 
CA, laboratory to continue its research efforts and 
collaborations to control and eradicate this devastating 
carrier and disease.
    Grain Marketing and Research Center.--The Committee is 
aware that ARS has co-located the research programs of the Wind 
Erosion Research Unit and the Grain Marketing Research Center 
[GMPRC] at the GMPRC location in Manhattan, Kansas. This co-
location of facilities results in inadequate research space for 
these individual programs. The Committee expects ARS to conduct 
a feasibility study detailing costs and plans for meeting the 
additional facility space requirements created by this co-
location. The Committee expects ARS to provide a report to the 
Committee on this study no later than March 1, 2004.
    Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.--Research is needed 
to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern 
Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of 
Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides 
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for this program to be 
carried out by the ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center in 
cooperation with the University of North Dakota School of 
Medicine and Health Sciences.
    Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction Research.--With the 
consumption of grapefruit juice dramatically declining, there 
is a need to examine and attain more precise data on the effect 
of grapefruit juice on the absorption rates of certain 
medications. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level 
to the ARS Citrus Research Laboratory at Winterhaven, FL, for 
research to identify and characterize the components of 
grapefruit juice responsible for enzyme suppression, understand 
the dosage affected, and determine the rate of consumption for 
safety and efficacy.
    Grape Genetics.--The Committee is aware that grapes are the 
sixth largest crop in the United States and one of the most 
important cash crops worldwide. The United States is the fourth 
largest producer of wine, responsible for about 10 percent of 
all world wine. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 
in fiscal year 2004 for the grape genetics research program at 
the ARS facility in Geneva, New York.
    Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes 
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide 
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American 
consumer. There is a great need for expanded fundamental and 
applied research to improve production technology of Great 
Lakes species such as whitefish, lake trout, yellow perch 
walleye, and northern pike. The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for a cooperative program with 
the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research and 
an increase of $300,000 for a cooperative agreement with the 
University of Wisconsin for Northern Wisconsin Aquaculture 
research.
    Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as 
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and 
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center 
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S. 
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving 
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for 
increased research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped 
bass.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the Hawaii Agriculture 
Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 
sugarcane producers and to continue to support the expansion of 
new crops and products, including those from agroforestry, to 
complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
    Hides and Leather Research.--The USDA's only hides and 
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional 
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the 
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and 
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S. 
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research.
    Hops Research.--The Committee is aware of the importance of 
research to the hops industry in the Pacific Northwest. Hops 
are grown commercially in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The 
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for research on 
powdery mildew that has caused widespread devastation to the 
hops production in the Northwest. This increase will be carried 
out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, OR.
    Horticulture Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits 
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation 
catalyzed and now undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other 
small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the 
development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and 
can revitalize small farms in the south. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the 
cooperative research and development efforts on ornamentals, 
vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
    Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging [HNRCA].--The 
HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers 
that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The 
program at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain 
existing scientists and staff as well as to offset inflation 
and spiraling energy costs. The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 to ARS from the fiscal year 2003 level to meet 
these resource needs.
    Integrated Farming Systems.--The Committee understands that 
Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation 
in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-
farm environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory 
in Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on 
nutrient management. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2003 level.
    IPM Strategies for Northern Climate.--Insect pests, plant 
pathogens, and weed pests are serious threats to Alaska's 
economic viability. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
agricultural research to enhance productivity and profitability 
of Alaska's farming industry, including the preservation and 
management of its valuable natural resources utilizing IPM 
strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 
funding level for expanded research to develop IPM application 
approaches suitable to northern latitudes that support viable 
crop and nursery production systems and the sustainability of 
natural resources.
    Invasive Species.--The Committee understands the serious 
impact that invasive species have on production agriculture. 
Invasive species are second only to loss of habitat in causing 
negative impacts on environmental areas and loss of biological 
diversity. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level 
for this biological control program.
    Johne's Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).--Johne's is a 
contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating 
enteritis and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and 
other wild and domestic ruminants. Infected animals 
intermittently shed the microorganisms into milk and feces. 
Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious, 
slow growth of the microorganisms and the poor reliability of 
the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to 
develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and better 
understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The 
Committee continues the funding level available in fiscal year 
2003 for research to control this devastating disease affecting 
this Nation's beef and dairy industries.
    Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S. 
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance 
and control methods, the Committee continues the fiscal year 
2003 level for research in this area. The Committee expects ARS 
to work with Kansas State University to establish a consortium 
in Manhattan, KS, that will work with other land grant 
universities in this research area.
    Livestock Genome Sequencing.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level for the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center 
at Clay Center, NE, for expanded genomics research to identify 
the genes that influence disease resistance, reproduction, 
nutrition, and other economically important traits in 
livestock. This research is to be performed in collaboration 
with the University of Illinois.
    Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.--The Committee 
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting 
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 
funding level for research on the development of vaccines 
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small 
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation 
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State 
University.
    Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS to initiate 
collaborative research with the Michael Fields Agricultural 
Institute. This research will develop high-quality corn in 
Wisconsin and other Mid-Western States for increased 
nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable farming 
systems. Collaborative research will be directed at corn 
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and 
information dissemination.
    Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics 
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at 
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX, 
and continues the fiscal year 2003 level of funding.
    Monkeypox Research.--The Committee is concerned about the 
recent outbreak of Monkeypox in the Midwest and the potential 
devastation posed by this disease to the United States. 
Homeowners continue to acquire more exotic pets including 
snakes, frogs, turtles, etc., that cause over 90,000 illnesses 
to Americans annually. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,000,000 for an interagency effort led by ARS to examine the 
presence of animal related diseases and pathogen transmissions 
between animals and humans. The Committee directs that the 
Agency work directly with the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Animal Health Laboratory at 
Madison, WI, to develop and improve diagnostics and control 
efforts in regard to this disease.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The 
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the 
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon 
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine 
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is 
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish, 
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for 
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee 
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at 
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
    National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.--The 
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville, 
IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial 
producers with a state-of-the-art facility to develop more 
efficient production of ethanol. The plant will operate on a 
time-share basis to Federal and State agencies, universities, 
and commercial producers. The plant has the near-term potential 
to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of corn 
conversion for ethanol production. The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level to fund ARS research at the pilot plant. 
The research will utilize both wet milled and dry milled 
projects and will focus on processing efficiencies that can be 
adapted commercially in the near term.
    National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary 
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of 
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical 
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food 
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling, 
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the combined 
national nutrition monitoring program.
    National Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of controlling this disease which affects 
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this 
research initiative which is centered at the ARS research 
station at Fargo, ND.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The National Center for 
Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with 
the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a 
series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland 
soil erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact 
of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have 
been recognized nationally and internationally as being at the 
forefront of research on understanding sediment transport 
processes. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level to ARS at Oxford for expanding cooperative research 
with the Center and accelerating the transfer of the modeling 
technology to Federal and State agencies responsible for 
mitigating soil erosion and sediment transport in streams.
    National Soil Erosion Laboratory.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 level for salaries and related research 
expenses for a water quality researcher stationed at the USDA-
ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory at West Lafayette, 
Indiana.
    Natural Products.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for the ARS to 
continue and accelerate its cooperative research with the 
National Center for Natural Products Research to discover and 
develop natural product chemicals for use in agriculture.
    Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse 
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture 
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research 
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production 
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory 
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as 
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that 
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee provides 
an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for 
support of two additional scientist positions required by the 
laboratory to assemble a team of scientists to address the 
diverse economic and environmental problems in the Northern 
Plains.
    Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.--The Committee is aware of 
the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS 
Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney, 
Montana. A major focus of research at the station is targeted 
to biocontrol of invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the 
long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland 
agriculture. Invasive weeds alter ecosystem structure and 
function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and 
requires widespread use of herbicides. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 level to strengthen this program.
    Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The 
Committee understands the importance of expanding research on 
irrigated cropping practices, crop rotation, water use, and 
integrated pest management of weeds in irrigated and dryland 
crops in the Northern Plains. This research will improve 
production and crop quality, and will increase long-term 
economic returns to growers. The Committee provides an increase 
of $900,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this research at the 
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.
    Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.--Invasive and 
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the 
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be 
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee 
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and 
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental 
Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2003 funding 
level for this research.
    Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains 
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which 
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of 
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the 
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides 
the Agricultural Research Service an increase of $950,000 from 
the fiscal year 2003 level for research into the complex nature 
of water availability, potential uses, and costs which will 
help determine future water policy in this region. This 
research is to be based in Texas but coordinated with other 
affected States, including Kansas.
    Organic Research.--The Committee supports ARS activities at 
appropriate locations to enhance research related to organic 
agriculture.
    Ornamental and Horticulture Research.--The Committee 
recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and 
the University of Vermont [UVM]. Research currently underway at 
UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM 
research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and 
horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee 
provides an increase of $150,000 for Pear thrips research from 
the fiscal year 2003 level.
    Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal 
year 2003 level to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical 
Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine control 
of the papaya ringspot virus and to expand the techniques and 
knowledge obtained from this program to other diseases and 
pests; and to coordinate a program to induce nematode 
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease 
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties and to seek funds 
from the private sector to complement Federal funds. The 
Committee views the nematode and ringspot virus activities as 
supportive of a national agricultural research agency and that 
of Hawaii.
    Phytoestrogens Research.--The Committee is aware of the 
increased consumption of soy products and controversies 
surrounding the health claims from those products. 
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block 
estrogen, remain a priority issue for USDA researchers. 
Research studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a 
range of human health benefits that can prevent certain 
diseases. However, extensive studies on their long-term 
benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee provides 
an increase of $400,000 for this research from the fiscal year 
2003 level. Current research is carried out at the Southern 
Regional Research Center in New Orleans in collaboration with 
other universities. The Committee directs $200,000 of these 
resources be used in collaboration with the University of 
Toledo to fingerprint and isolate novel products in stressed 
and unstressed soy.
    Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.--The 
Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability, 
invasive weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western 
United States. To meet these needs, the Committee supports the 
establishment of a plant genetic diversity and gene discovery 
center at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in 
collaboration with the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. 
The center will access plant genetic relationships and identify 
native plant species through DNA technologies to help 
conservation efforts in genetic diversity and support wild 
lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and invasive 
weed control activities. The Committee provides an increase of 
$750,000 in fiscal year 2004 for this program.
    Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant 
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on 
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the 
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the 
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the 
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and 
animal sciences. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,200,000 in fiscal year 2004 to ensure scientific staffing 
and to strengthen ongoing poisonous plant research programs.
    Potato Production.--The Committee recognizes the important 
contributions made by the USDA-ARS research units at Prosser 
and Wapato, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation 
between the units in conducting research and solving problems 
in potato production.
    Potato Research.--The Committee is concerned that funding 
levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS' ability to 
address some aspects of potato variety research. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 level to meet research staffing 
needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research laboratory.
    The Committee expects that the potato research funds 
appropriated to the ARS Research Unit in Wapato, Washington, be 
used for actual potato research, and recommends that ARS 
allocate a proportionate amount of these funds for potato 
entomology research, rather than only staff and indirect costs.
    Potato Storage.--The Committee recognizes the need for 
expanded investigations on potato storage and provides an 
increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this work. 
Research will be conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory 
on plant physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help 
growers reduce pesticide inputs.
    Precision Agriculture Research.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 level for the Mandan Northern Great Plains 
Research Laboratory for a precision agriculture research 
project and global climate change research. The precision 
agriculture research should be conducted in cooperation with 
the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and DigitalGlobe. In 
addition, the Committee has restored the funding provided last 
year for the Hettinger Extension Service Southwest Feeders 
Program. ARS researchers can contribute significantly to the 
knowledge base UMAC can transfer to producers.
    Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2004 at the same funding level 
provided in fiscal year 2003: Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS; 
Aerial Application Research, College Station, TX; Aflatoxin in 
Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics, Ames, 
IA; Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry 
Research, Booneville, AR; Alternative Crops and Value Added 
Products, Stoneville, MS; Animal Vaccines; Animal Welfare 
Information Center, NAL; Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 
Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Pasture Based Beef Systems, 
Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 
Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Arctic 
Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Arid Lands Research, Las Cruces, NM; 
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR; Asian 
Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Barley Food Health Benefits, 
Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Logan, UT; Bee Research, Weslaco, 
TX; Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program; 
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, Ames, IA; 
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials in 
Plants, Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control 
of Nematodes, Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and 
Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Biotechnology Research to Improve 
Crops and Livestock, Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics, 
Beltsville, MD; Broiler Production in the Mid-South, 
Mississippi State, MS; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL; Catfish 
Health, Stoneville, MS; Central Great Plains Research Station, 
Akron, CO; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Cereal Crops, 
Northern Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Disease Research, St. Paul, 
MN; Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL; Beltsville, MD; Corn 
Germplasm, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA; 
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Cotton 
Genetics Research, Florence, SC; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and 
Variety Development, Stoneville, MS; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, 
Variety Development and Pest Resistance, Stoneville, MS; Cotton 
Ginning Research, Las Cruces, NM; Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; 
Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta Nutrition Intervention 
Initiative. Little Rock, AR; Diet and Immune Function, Little 
Rock, AR; Dryland Production, Akron, CO; Ecology of Tamarix, 
Reno, NV; Floriculture and Nursery Crops; Food Safety and 
Engineering, Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety for Listeria and E.coli; 
Forage and Range Research, Logan, UT; Forage-Livestock Systems, 
Lexington, KY; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA; 
Foundry Sand By-Products, Beltsville, MD; Ft. Keogh Livestock 
and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT; Grain Legume 
Plant Pathologist Position, Pullman, WA; Grain Research, 
Manhattan, KS; Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory, Grand 
Forks, ND; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; Grapefruit Juice/Drug 
Interaction; Winter Haven, FL; Great Basins Rangeland, Boise, 
ID; Reno, NV; Burns, OR; Greenhouse Hydroponics Research, 
Wooster, OH; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center, 
Stuttgart, AR; Harvesting Research for Sugarcane, Houma, LA; 
Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, PA; Honey Bee Research, 
Baton Rouge, LA; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR; Horticulture 
Research, Poplaraville, MS; Human Nutrition Research Center on 
Aging, Boston, MA; Improved Animal Waste Management, Florence, 
SC; Improved Crop Production Practices, Auburn, AL; Improved 
Forage Livestock Production, Lexington, KY; Integrated Farming 
Systems, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming Systems/Dairy Forage, 
Madison, WI; IPM for Northern Climate Crops, Fairbanks, AK; 
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South, Stoneville, MS; 
Johne's Disease, Ames, IA; Beltsville, MD; Jornada Experimental 
Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan, 
KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME; Livestock and Range 
Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome Mapping, Clay 
Center, NE; Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, WA; 
Medicinal Botanical Production and Processing, Beaver, WV; 
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI; Microbial 
Genomics, Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; Minor Use Pesticide [IR-
4]; National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, 
Leetown, WV; National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture--Aquaculture Systems--Freshwater Institute, 
Leetown, WV; National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono, ME; 
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; National 
Germplasm Resources Program; National Nutrition Monitoring 
System, Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, 
ND; National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Oxford, MS; 
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS; 
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin/TMDLs, Oxford, 
MS; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; National 
Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; National Warmwater 
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products, Oxford, 
MS; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil, 
and Water Research, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insect 
Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem, 
Sidney, MT; Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, 
ND; Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM; 
Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits 
Research, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN; 
Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA; 
Montpelier, FR; Ornamental and Horticulture Research, Ithaca, 
NY; Ornamental Crops Research, Poplarville, MS; Phytoestrogen 
Research, New Orleans, LA; Pierce's Disease, Davis, CA; 
Parlier, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Potato Breeding Research, 
Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Potato 
Research, Aberdeen, ID; Poultry Disease (Avian Coccidiosis), 
Beltsville, MD; Poultry Disease (Avian Leukosis-J Virus); 
Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan, ND; Rainbow Trout, 
Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow Trout, Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resources 
Research, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire Ants, Stoneville, 
MS; Regional Grains Genotyping Research, Raleigh, NC; Residue 
Management in Sugarcane, Houma, LA; Resistance Management and 
Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton, Stoneville, MS; Risk Assessment 
for Bt Corn, Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley, 
Pullman, WA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK; Sedimentation Issues 
in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitations, Oxford, MS; Seismic and 
Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory, 
Oxford, MS; Shellfish Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Farms, 
Booneville, AR; Small Fruits Research, Poplarville, MS; Soil 
Plant Nutrient Research, Ft. Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research, 
Ames, IA; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR: Manhattan, KS; 
Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX; Lubbock, TX; Southwest Pecan 
Research, College Station, TX; Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation, 
Raleigh, NC; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean 
Genetics, Columbia, MO; Soybean Research in the South, 
Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak Disease, Frederick, MD; Sugarbeet 
Research, Kimberly, ID; Sustainable Olive Production, Weslaco, 
TX; Sustainable Vineyard Practices, Davis, CA; Sustainable 
Viticulture Research, Davis; CA; Sweet Potato Research, 
Stoneville, MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence, 
SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Trout Genome Mapping, 
Leetown, WV; Turfgrass Research, Washington, DC; U.S. National 
Arboretum, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin Ag Research 
Center, Hilo, HI; U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation 
Laboratory, Lubbock, TX; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory/Staffing, 
Charleston, SC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health, 
Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI; Virus-Free 
Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, WA; Virus-Free Potato Germplasm, 
Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture, Corvallis, OR; Waste Management 
Research, Mississippi State, MS; Water Management Research 
Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water Resource Management, Tifton; GA; 
Water Use Reduction/Producer Enhancement Research, Dawson, GA; 
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO; Western Grazinglands, Burns, 
OR; Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, Pullman, WA; Wheat and 
Barley Scab Initiative, Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; 
Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Wooster, OH; 
Pullman, WA; Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN; Woody Genomics and 
Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville, MS.
    Rainbow Trout.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$725,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop and test 
improved rainbow trout strains and alternative grain-based fish 
feeds in cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish 
Culture Experiment Station in Hagerman, Idaho.
    Red Imported Fire Ants.--Nationally, the red imported fire 
ant causes damage and control costs of over $1,000,000,000 per 
year. As an invasive species, it has expanded from its apparent 
point of entry at Mobile, Alabama, to encompass over 300 
million acres in 12 Southern States including Mississippi and 
Texas, three Western States including California, and Puerto 
Rico. Range expansion into one-fourth of the United States and 
parts of Mexico is expected to continue without centralized 
aggressive action. The Committee recognizes the leadership 
provided by ARS at Stoneville, MS, in the development of 
natural enemy mass propagation and release technologies for 
area-wide suppression of the red imported fire ant and halting 
its spread. Other research is directed toward development of 
toxic baits and use of geographic information systems and 
remote sensing technologies to detect the delineate fire ant 
infested areas. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal 
year 2003 level to expand cooperative research to implement 
multi-year, community-wide trials in the mid-South to eliminate 
populations of the imported fire ant.
    Regional Grains Genotyping Research.--Current regional ARS 
laboratories characterize germplasm and improve resistance to 
rusts, blights and insect pests. Regional genotyping centers 
will overcome the barriers to practical use through DNA 
extraction and high-throughout marker screening procedures. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this 
research to be carried out at the ARS research laboratory at 
Raleigh, NC.
    Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and 
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons 
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant 
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests. 
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests 
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the 
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The 
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for 
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt 
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate 
these strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 
level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a national 
program for devising the most effective and economically 
sustainable production systems for ensuring the long-term 
integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance management.
    Seafood Waste.--The disposal of seafood waste continues to 
be a national and international problem. Additional research is 
needed to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a 
possible source of additional income for seafood producers. The 
Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska 
collaborative research project on feedstuff that can be 
generated from materials usually wasted during processing of 
seafoods. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from 
the level of funding available in fiscal year 2003 for expanded 
research to address this problem.
    Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitation.--
Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the 
United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000 
watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a 
$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control, 
municipal water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat 
enhancement. The life expectancy of these dams is projected to 
be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity, 
structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations 
have become more strict. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2003 funding level to ARS at Oxford, MS, for assessing the 
efficiency of these structures in regulating floodwater, 
including the use of acoustics techniques, and hazards that the 
sediments may pose if introduced into the environment.
    Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish 
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and 
food quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this 
multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2003 
funding level for shellfish genetics research at the Oregon 
State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.
    Silverleaf Whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known 
as the sweetpotato whitefly, causes 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 Fruits Research.--The Committee supports the ongoing 
research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and Pathology 
Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh and 
processed berries and grapes in both domestic and international 
markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The Committee 
provides an increas of $250,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level 
of funding for this research which involves cooperation between 
industry, State and Federal research.
    Soil Dynamics Research.--The extent of soil degradation in 
the South not only impairs soil and water quality but also 
reduces profitability and economic sustainability of farms in 
the region. Improving profitability of farms in the South is 
critical to rural economies as farm numbers continue to 
decline. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from 
the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the ARS Soil Dynamics 
Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for expanded research to develop 
technologies and strategies for managing soils to increase farm 
profitability, and preserve the soil resource for future 
generations.
    Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.--The Committee understands 
the important contributions made by the ARS Ft. Collins Soil, 
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2003 
funding level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen 
management research program carried out at this laboratory.
    Sorghum Research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of 
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and 
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses 
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over 
$2,100,000,000. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 
funding level for expanded research at the ARS Grain Sorghum 
Research Laboratory, Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of 
sorghum quality and the development of alternative uses of this 
important crop.
    Soybean Research in the South.--The Committee has continued 
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the continuation of the 
soybean research program located at the Delta Branch Experiment 
Station in Stoneville, Mississippi with the USDA/ARS focusing 
on soybean genetics and breeding, and Mississippi Agriculture 
and Forestry Experiment Station devoting efforts to production 
systems research.
    Soybean Rust.--The Committee is aware of serious concerns 
raised by the soybean industry due to the threat of soybean 
rust. Soybean rust is a fungus that first appears on the leaves 
of the plant and eventually causes pre-mature defoliation which 
brings about substantial yield loss. The Committee encourages 
the Agriculture Research Service to consider the submission of 
a reprogramming request of existing funds relating to soybean 
research to address the threat of soybean rust.
    Sudden Oak Disease Syndrome.--This is a fungus that has 
afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in 
the last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus 
is spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted 
species can be treated. The Committee is concerned about the 
potential spread of the fungus to other parts of the country 
without the appropriate treatment and management of the 
disease. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000 from 
the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research 
laboratory for research critical in stemming the spread of this 
disease.
    Sugarbeet Research.--There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets 
grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research 
technologies to maintain and enhance production and 
profitability. The Committee provides an increase of $40,000 
from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to support research to 
reduce irrigation and energy costs essential to sugarbeet 
production. This research is carried out at the ARS Kimberly, 
ID, research station.
    Sugarcane Research.--The Committee is aware of the urgent 
need for ARS research to provide viable, cost-effective ``green 
cane'' harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to 
burning cane in the field. The Committee provides an increase 
of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this 
research to be carried out at the Houma, LA, research station.
    Sustainable Olive Production.--The Committee notes the 
significance of olive oil as a value added product and its 
growing importance to farmers in the Southwest as a viable 
economic commodity. Research is underway to develop sustainable 
methods for improved olive oil production and quality in the 
Southwest. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for 
fiscal year 2004 for this research at the ARS Weslaco, TX, 
research station.
    Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value, 
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved 
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic 
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling 
the level of production per acre, further increasing the 
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to 
conduct research on sweet potato production in cooperation with 
the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou, 
MS.
    Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.--The Committee is aware 
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory 
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost 
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this 
research.
    Tree Fruit Industry.--The Committee is aware that the 
Department has been working with the U.S. tree fruit industry 
to develop a technology roadmap which will establish research 
priorities to enhance fruit quality, strengthen access by the 
tree fruit industry to technology advances, and ensure the U.S. 
tree fruit industry remains competitive in world markets. The 
Committee expects that a strategic plan addressing the 
technology roadmap and the tree fruit industry's needs, which 
was scheduled for completion in May 2003, will include 
suggestions for future research initiatives based on strong 
public/private collaborations. The Committee also expects that 
the plan will be used to evaluate program policies and new 
program initiatives to help the tree fruit industry remain 
globally competitive.
    Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the 
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and 
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold 
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile 
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian 
region. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the 
fiscal year 2003 funding level for research on cool and cold 
water species at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture, in collaboration with West Virginia University.
    Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.--The Committee is aware of the 
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in 
Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with and fund 
as appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer 
generic resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University 
of Hawaii breeding lines for the impacted vegetable crops.
    USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--
The USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory, 
Orono, ME, performs a critical function that benefits not only 
the Maine economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The 
research performed at this laboratory--including cropping 
systems and management practices, efficient use of nutrients 
and water, and control of pathogens, insects and weeds--
benefits numerous agricultural interests, most notably the 
potato and livestock industries.
    It is especially vital to New England potato growers that 
this lab continue and even increase its important research. The 
laboratory conducts experiments to address unique challenges 
that face potato growers both in the region and across the 
Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example, has 
included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic 
that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000 
annually. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS 
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New 
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato 
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the 
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the 
grower's fields.
    The Committee provides funding at no less than the fiscal 
year 2003 level to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and 
Water Laboratory and research programs.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee restores base funding not included in the 
Administration's budget request, and provides an increase of 
$400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for operating the U.S. 
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. Of the amount 
restored for fiscal year 2003 and the added amount provided for 
fiscal year 2004, one-third is for the Center to continue the 
recruitment and hiring of scientists and technicians at rates 
consistent with construction of the Center and its mission; 
one-third is for the University of Hawaii Hilo to increase its 
capacity to complement the research of the Center; and one-
third is for the University of Hawaii Manoa for improving its 
statewide capacity to transfer research results and to 
communicate industry-identified needs and issues to the 
research community.
    U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee is aware of the 
important scientific staffing requirements of the newly 
completed U.S. Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC. 
Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority 
research and to maximize use of the facility. An increase of 
$300,000 is provided from the fiscal year 2003 level for 
research staffing.
    Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.--The Committee recognizes 
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties 
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery 
industries. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level 
to implement new technologies for more rapid and dependable 
methods of pathogen detection and to provide secure production 
and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree cultivars. The 
collaborative research is to be carried out at the Prosser, WA 
research station with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and 
Extension Center.
    Viticulture Research.--With the emerging importance of the 
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the 
viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma 
Research and Extension Center, for research at the Center, and 
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho 
researchers for viticulture research.
    Waste Management Research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS 
for the expanded joint research project with Western Kentucky 
University. The cooperative program to be located and carried 
out at Bowling Green, KY, will be directed toward management of 
poultry waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops, 
as a nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural 
applications.
    Water Quality/Water Use Research.--Agricultural producers 
in the Southeast are seeking solutions to meet reduced 
irrigation requirements while maintaining or enhancing their 
net returns. The National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson, 
GA, is conducting research to find solutions to a more 
restrictive water supply that impacts agriculture and rural 
economies in Southwest, Georgia. The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level for these investigations at the Dawson 
laboratory.
    Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2003 level of funding to ARS for laboratory 
analysis of water samples collected during implementation of, 
and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, 
Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
    Weed Management Program.--The Committee is aware of the 
need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols 
and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally 
sound technologies to control weeds. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 to develop non-
chemical alternatives for weed control.
    Western Grazinglands Research.--The Committee is aware of 
the important rangeland research program conducted at the 
Burns, OR, laboratory to control invasive weeds which affect 
the Great Basin. Research is targeted to management of 
rangelands, conservation, and sustainable practices. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this 
research.
    Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.--The Committee recognizes 
the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality 
Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2003 level to enhance its ability to handle more 
samples, modernize equipment, and develop new predictive 
quality tests.
    Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS 
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight 
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to 
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for this 
research.
    Wind Erosion Research.--The Committee provides funding for 
the Wind Erosion Unit in Manhattan, KS, at the fiscal year 2003 
level. 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 2004.
    Wine Grape Foundation Block.--The Committee is concerned 
about the potential for virus-infected wine grape rootstock 
which could cause economic harm to Pacific Northwest wine grape 
growers and vintners. The Committee provides an increase of 
$150,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for wine grape 
foundation block research at Prosser, WA.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................    $118,703,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      24,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of 
$110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.

    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 
$46,000,000. This is $72,703,000 less than the 2003 
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                                          2004 budget     recommendation
                                                                 2003 enacted       estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory,              12,220  ...............  ...............
 Maricopa....................................................
District of Columbia: U.S. National Arboretum................            1,689  ...............  ...............
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo            2,981  ...............            5,400
Idaho: Advanced Genetics Laboratory, Aberdeen................            4,570  ...............  ...............
Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames...................       \1\ 32,786  ...............  ...............
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing and Production Research Center,             4,252  ...............  ...............
 Manhattan...................................................
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research                  9,091  ...............            3,000
 Center, Orono/Franklin......................................
Maryland:
    Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville            1,490            2,000  ...............
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville......            4,153  ...............            3,000
Minnesota: Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul...............            3,179  ...............  ...............
Mississippi:
    Plant Propagation Facility, Oxford.......................            1,987  ...............  ...............
    Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville...........            9,140  ...............  ...............
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville...  ...............  ...............            5,400
Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center,         ...............  ...............            2,700
 Columbia....................................................
Montana: Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory,     ...............  ...............            2,800
 Sidney......................................................
Oklahoma:....................................................
    Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward.........            7,948  ...............  ...............
    Grazinglands Research Laboratory, Ft. Reno...............  ...............  ...............            2,400
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston........            1,391  ...............            3,500
South Dakota: Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory,                8,544  ...............  ...............
 Brookings...................................................
Utah: Poisonous Plant Laboratory, Logan......................            1,485  ...............  ...............
West Virginia: Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville                  472  ...............            2,000
Wisconsin:
    Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison......................            8,345  ...............  ...............
    Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield...............            2,981  ...............            4,100
Upgrade security at all ARS laboratories.....................  ...............           22,000           11,700
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................  \1\ \2\ 118,703           24,000           46,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of $110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.
\2\ Totals may not add due to rounding.

    The Committee provides funds for the following projects. 
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide the full amounts required to complete construction of 
all projects.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee provides funds for the completion of Phase I of the 
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center.--
The Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the next phase of 
construction of the National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture 
Research Center [NCWMAC] in Orono and Franklin, Maine.
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 toward the construction of the Beltsville 
Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.--The Jamie 
Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located 
in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. 
Millions of acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are 
located in this Delta area, and the Delta leads the world in 
channel catfish production. The Committee provides $5,400,000 
for the completion of phase 1 of this construction and 
modernization project.
    National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee 
provides $2,700,000 to complete the planning and design phase 
of this project. The Committee notes that the current 
collaborative effort between the ARS Plant Genetics Research 
Unit and the University of Missouri has resulted in a 
nationally-recognized crop biotechnology effort in maize, 
soybeans, and wheat at Columbia, Missouri.
    National Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides $2,800,000 to complete construction of the 
next phase of the National Plains Agricultural Research 
Laboratory in Sidney, Montana. The Committee notes that the 
planned new greenhouses and improved BL-2 quarantine facility 
will position the Lab to better serve the region's research 
needs in biocontrol of invasive species, as well as improve 
productivity and economic viability of sustainable diverse, 
integrated dryland and irrigated cropping systems.
    Grazinglands Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$2,400,000 for the completion of phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 
greenhouse complex at the Grazinglands Research Laboratory in 
Fort Reno, Oklahoma. The Committee notes that this project 
includes bio-containment capabilities which, when completed, 
will allow research on genetically-modified plants.
    U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$3,500,000 for the completion of greenhouse and headhouse 
construction at the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, 
South Carolina.
    Appalachian Fruit Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 toward renovation and repair of the Appalachian 
Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville, West Virginia.
    Nutrient Management Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
funds for the completion of Phase I of the Nutrient Management 
Laboratory in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
    The Committee has provide $11,700,000 for physical security 
upgrades at ARS facilities. Prior to the obligation of funds, 
the Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the 
Committee which describes those locations for which physical 
security needs have been identified, as well as the locations 
for purposes for which funds will be allocated.
    The Committee notes that the ARS Analytical Services 
Laboratory and other labs in the University of Wyoming's 
biological research building are involved in research into 
plague, rabbit fever, Brucellosis, Q fever, and regularly 
receive suspect cases of anthrax. The Committee suggests that 
some of these funds should be used to harden the facility by 
designating a secure select agent laboratory, acquiring 
security clearances for faculty and technicians, and renovating 
the building to make it more secure.
    The Committee notes that there is widespread interest in 
additional construction and renovation of ARS facilities 
throughout the country. This is not surprising when considering 
the fact that many of the existing facilities are decades old. 
Therefore, the Committee is requesting the assistance of ARS in 
determining the merits and priority for these requests.
    The Committee notes that $11,700,000 has been provided in 
this account for security upgrades at all ARS laboratories. The 
Committee also notes that several of the following construction 
projects have been described by various ARS officials as top 
priorities. Therefore, if ARS determines that any of the 
following projects merit action in fiscal year 2004, these 
funds may be used for site acquisition, design, or 
construction. Should ARS exercise this authority, the Committee 
expects to be notified of the projects selected for such 
action.
    Aberdeen/Billingsley Creek, Idaho.--The Committee directs 
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and 
scope for construction of an ARS trout farm facility at 
Billingsley Creek, Idaho which would include concrete raceways 
and a pond/tank research complex. The report should detail 
building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific 
capacity, and other requirements. The report should also detail 
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this 
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    Animal Waste Management Research.--The Committee has been 
made aware of the need for an animal waste management research 
laboratory in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The Committee directs 
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and 
scope for construction of an ARS facility in that location. The 
report should detail building size, cost, associated 
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for 
collaboration with Western Kentucky University. The report 
should also detail existing and planned program and resource 
requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 
2004.
    Forage-Animal Research Laboratory.--The Committee has been 
made aware of the need for a facility to accommodate existing 
scientists and the expanding forage-animal production research 
program at Lexington, Kentucky. The Committee directs ARS to 
provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope 
for the construction of such an ARS facility at that location. 
The report should detail building size, cost, associated 
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for 
collaboration with the University of Kentucky. The report 
should also detail existing and planned program and resource 
requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 
2004.
    Starksville, Mississippi.--The Committee has been made 
aware of the need for a state-of-the-art laboratory and office 
facilities to house ARS and Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] scientists. The Committee 
directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, 
requirements, and scope for construction of an ARS facility at 
this location. The report should detail building size, cost, 
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other 
requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State 
University. The report should also detail existing and planned 
program and resource requirements for this location, and should 
be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    Vivarium and Animal Disease Research.--The Committee has 
been made aware of the need for a vivarium and animal disease 
research facility at Mississippi State University. The 
Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, 
requirements, and scope for construction of an ARS facility at 
that location. The report should detail building size, cost, 
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other 
requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State 
University. The report should also detail existing and planned 
program and resource requirements for this location, and should 
be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    Animal Biosciences Facility.--The Committee is aware of the 
need for an animal bioscience facility at Montana State 
University to provide a collaborative environment to allow 
investigators from different disciplines to study issues 
related to cutting-edge biobased food science and technology as 
well as animal science. The Committee directs ARS to provide a 
report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for 
construction of an ARS facility at that location. The report 
should also detail building size, cost, associated facilities, 
scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration 
with Montana State University. The report should detail 
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this 
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    Red River Valley, North Dakota.--The Committee has been 
made aware of needs for improvements at the Red River Valley 
Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota. The 
Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, 
requirements, and scope for facility needs at this location. 
The report should detail any expansion of building size, costs, 
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other 
requirements for operations. The report should also detail 
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this 
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations for the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    University of Toledo.--The Committee has been made aware of 
the need for an ARS laboratory, greenhouse, and office space 
for USDA scientists involved in the greenhouse study at the 
University of Toledo. The Committee directs ARS to provide a 
report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for the 
construction of an ARS facility at this location. The report 
should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, 
scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration 
with the University of Toledo. The report should also detail 
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this 
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
    Dairy Forage Lab.--The Committee has been made aware of 
improvement needs at Dairy Forage Laboratory facility locations 
at Prairie du Sac and Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee directs 
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and 
scope for facility needs at these locations. The report should 
detail any expansion of building size, costs, associated 
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for 
operations. The report should also detail existing and planned 
program and resource requirements for these locations, and 
should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

      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 the Extension Service. The mission is to 
work with university partners and customers 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, 2003....................................    $616,792,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     514,228,000
Committee recommendation................................     617,575,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States to support 
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and 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); the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the 
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 
Act of 1998; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to 
encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct 
agricultural research and education 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 $617,575,000. This amount is $783,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This does not include an 
increase of $51,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    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 2003 and budget request levels:

    COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2003                           Committee
                                                                 appropriation    2004 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act......................................         178,977         180,148          178,977
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)..............          21,742          21,884           21,742
Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University.............          35,411          36,000           35,411
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
    Advanced genetic technologies (KY)........................             671  ...............             671
    Advanced spatial technologies (MS)........................             983  ...............             983
    Aegilops cylindricum (WA, ID).............................             381  ...............             342
    Agricultural diversification (HI).........................             127  ...............             127
    Agricultural diversity--Red River Trade Corridor (MN, ND).             497  ...............             497
    Agricultural science (OH).................................             497  ...............             497
    Agriculture water usage (GA)..............................             291  ...............             261
    Agroecology (MD)..........................................             397  ...............             397
    Air quality (TX, KS)......................................             869  ...............             869
    Alliance for food protection (GA, NE).....................             298  ...............             268
    Alternative crops (ND)....................................             199  ...............  ...............
    Alternative nutrient management (VT)......................             185  ...............             166
    Alternative salmon products (AK)..........................             627  ...............             631
    Alternative uses for tobacco (MD).........................             358  ...............             358
    Animal disease research (WY)..............................             248  ...............             248
    Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)........           1,604  ...............           1,614
    Apple Fire Blight (MI, NY)................................             492  ...............             442
    Aquaculture (AR)..........................................             230  ...............             172
    Aquaculture (ID, WA)......................................             770  ...............             693
    Aquaculture (LA)..........................................             328  ...............             350
    Aquaculture (MS)..........................................             582  ...............             582
    Aquaculture (NC)..........................................             291  ...............             261
    Aquaculture (VA)..........................................             124  ...............             111
    Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)........             735  ...............             750
    Armillaria root rot (MI)..................................             159  ...............             143
    Asparagus technology and production (WA)..................             278  ...............             278
    Babcock Institute (WI)....................................             596  ...............             600
    Beef technology transfer (MO).............................             292  ...............             292
    Berry research (AK).......................................             199  ...............             200
    Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)......................  ..............  ...............             199
    Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS)....................           1,143  ...............           1,143
    Biotechnology (NC)........................................             304  ...............             228
    Biotechnology test production (IA)........................             199  ...............             199
    Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA)........             240  ...............  ...............
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)..................................             346  ...............             311
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)..................................             490  ...............             490
    Center for Food Quality (UT)..............................             149  ...............  ...............
    Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT)..........  ..............  ...............             250
    Center for Rural Studies (VT).............................             338  ...............             338
    Chesapeake Bay agroecology/pfisteria initiative (MD)......             318  ...............             318
    Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)......................             149  ...............             149
    Citrus canker (FL)........................................             487  ...............  ...............
    Citrus tristeza (CA)......................................             720  ...............  ...............
    Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA)..............             676  ...............             676
    Computational agriculture (NY)............................             248  ...............  ...............
    Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND)..................             334  ...............             600
    Cotton fiber quality (GA).................................             397  ...............             397
    Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............  ..............  ...............             150
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)..................................             171  ...............             171
    Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ).............             234  ...............             234
    Crop diversification (MO).................................             795  ...............             397
    Crop integration and production (SD)......................             273  ...............             300
    Crop pathogens (NC).......................................             199  ...............             199
    Dairy and meat goat research (TX).........................              63  ...............              63
    Dairy farm profitability (PA).............................             497  ...............             497
    Delta rural revitalization (MS)...........................             204  ...............             204
    Designing foods for health (TX)...........................             820  ...............             820
    Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)................................             447  ...............  ...............
    Dietary intervention (OH).................................             248  ...............  ...............
    Drought mitigation (NE)...................................             224  ...............             224
    Drought management (UT)...................................  ..............  ...............             750
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX).............................           1,490  ...............           1,490
    Environmental biotechnology (RI)..........................             596  ...............             596
    Environmental research (NY)...............................             392  ...............  ...............
    Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)....................             221  ...............  ...............
    Environmentally-safe products (VT)........................             243  ...............             243
    Ethnobotany research (AK).................................  ..............  ...............             300
    Exotic pest diseases (CA).................................           1,888  ...............           2,000
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)...............................             308  ...............             277
    Farm injuries and illnesses (NC)..........................             276  ...............             138
    Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT).....................             828  ...............             828
    Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)............................             248  ...............  ...............
    Feedstock conversion (SD).................................             556  ...............             750
    Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)......................             462  ...............             415
    Floriculture (HI).........................................             397  ...............             397
    Food chain economic analysis (IA).........................              50  ...............             250
    Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO)...           1,515  ...............           1,515
    Food irradiation (IA).....................................             243  ...............  ...............
    Food Marketing Policy Center (CT).........................             487  ...............             487
    Food processing center (NE)...............................              42  ...............  ...............
    Food quality (AK).........................................             348  ...............             350
    Food safety (AL)..........................................           1,118  ...............           1,118
    Food safety (OK)..........................................             621  ...............             558
    Food safety (TX)..........................................             199  ...............             199
    Food safety research consortium (NY)......................             894  ...............  ...............
    Food safety risk assessment (ND)..........................           1,341  ...............           1,650
    Food security (WA)........................................             447  ...............             402
    Food Systems Research Group (WI)..........................             546  ...............             550
    Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)...........             431  ...............             431
    Forestry (AR).............................................             509  ...............             458
    Functional genomics (UT)..................................  ..............  ...............           1,500
    Future foods (IL).........................................             248  ...............             300
    Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation                 194  ...............  ...............
     (NY).....................................................
    Genomics (MS).............................................             715  ...............             715
    Global change/ultraviolet radiation.......................           2,235           2,500            2,235
    Grain sorghum (KS)........................................             139  ...............             139
    Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL)....................             248  ...............  ...............
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture                454  ...............             408
     (ID, OR, WA).............................................
    Grazing research (WI).....................................  ..............  ...............             250
    Greenhouse nurseries (OH).................................             149  ...............  ...............
    Greenhouse crop production (AK)...........................  ..............  ...............             500
    Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX)...................             447  ...............  ...............
    Hoop barns (IA)...........................................             209  ...............             325
    Horn fly research (AL)....................................  ..............  ...............             150
    Human nutrition (IA)......................................             727  ...............             732
    Human nutrition (LA)......................................             795  ...............             715
    Human nutrition (NY)......................................             611  ...............  ...............
    Hydroponic tomato production (OH).........................              99  ...............  ...............
    Improved dairy management practices (PA)..................             397  ...............             397
    Improved early detection of crop disease (NC).............             193  ...............  ...............
    Improved fruit practices (MI).............................             237  ...............             213
    Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)....             790  ...............             790
    Infectious disease research (CO)..........................             745  ...............             745
    Institute for biobased products and food science (MT).....             596  ...............             596
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)...........           1,214  ...............           1,214
    Integrated production systems (OK)........................             231  ...............             207
    Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND)...........             358  ...............  ...............
    International arid lands consortium.......................             514  ...............             650
    Iowa Biotechnology Consortium.............................           1,754  ...............           1,765
    Leopold Center hypoxia project............................  ..............  ...............             250
    Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX).......................             600  ...............             540
    Waste.....................................................  ..............  ...............             150
    Livestock genome sequencing (IL)..........................             447  ...............  ...............
    Livestock waste (IA)......................................  ..............  ...............             300
    Lowbush blueberry research (ME)...........................             263  ...............             263
    Maple research (VT).......................................             149  ...............             149
    Meadowfoam (OR)...........................................             293  ...............             219
    Michigan biotechnology consortium.........................             624  ...............             468
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE).........             477  ...............             429
    Midwest agricultural products (IA)........................             628  ...............             646
    Midwest poultry consortium (IA)...........................             695  ...............             700
    Milk safety (PA)..........................................             745  ...............             745
    Minor use animal drugs (IR-4).............................             584             588              588
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)..................................             392  ...............             284
    Montana sheep institute (MT)..............................             556  ...............             556
    Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.......................           1,206  ...............             603
    Multi-commodity research (OR).............................             397  ...............             297
    Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)............             123  ...............             123
    National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY,                668  ...............             668
     CO)......................................................
    National biological impact assessment program.............             251             253              251
    National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)...............  ..............  ...............           1,000
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM)..............             146  ...............             146
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV)....................             522  ...............             522
    New crop opportunities (AK)...............................             487  ...............             500
    New crop opportunities (KY)...............................             737  ...............             737
    Non-food uses of agricultural products (NE)...............              64  ...............  ...............
    Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL)............             308  ...............             285
    Oil resources from desert plants (NM).....................             224  ...............             224
    Olive Fly (CA)............................................              40  ...............  ...............
    Organic cropping (WA).....................................             124  ...............             250
    Organic waste utilization (NM)............................              99  ...............              99
    Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)........................             447  ...............  ...............
    Ozone air quality (CA)....................................             427  ...............             427
    Pasture and forage research (UT)..........................             246  ...............             250
    Peach tree short life (SC)................................             260  ...............             260
    Perennial wheat (WA)......................................             149  ...............  ...............
    Pest control alternatives (SC)............................             303  ...............             303
    Phytophthora root rot (NM)................................             184  ...............             184
    Pierce's disease (CA).....................................           2,235  ...............           2,250
    Plant biotechnology (IA)..................................             248  ...............  ...............
    Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging                 245  ...............             245
     (NM).....................................................
    Potato research...........................................           1,574  ...............           1,416
    Precision agriculture (KY)................................             737  ...............             737
    Preharvest food safety (KS)...............................             207  ...............             207
    Preservation and processing research (OK).................             223  ...............             200
    Protein utilization (IA)..................................             422  ...............             750
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM).................................             318  ...............             318
    Regional barley gene mapping project......................             755  ...............             679
    Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO,TX)........             318  ...............             286
    Rice Agronomy (MO)........................................             199  ...............  ...............
    Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)............             447  ...............             500
    Rural Development Centers (ND, LA)........................             176  ...............             132
    Rural obesity (NY)........................................             199  ...............  ...............
    Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)............           1,262  ...............           1,262
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)..................................             318  ...............             318
    Satsuma mandarin orange research (AL).....................             894  ...............  ...............
    Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and                    301  ...............             301
     marketing (MS)...........................................
    Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)........           1,192  ...............           1,192
    Seafood safety (MA).......................................             422  ...............             422
    Seed research (AK)........................................             323  ...............             400
    Seed technology (SD)......................................  ..............  ...............             350
    Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID).........................             397  ...............             397
    Soil and environmental quality (DE).......................             129  ...............             129
    Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water                      389  ...............             389
     resources................................................
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO)................................             688  ...............  ...............
    Soybean research (IL).....................................             844  ...............             844
    STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest.............             666  ...............             666
    Sudden oak death (CA).....................................              99  ...............              99
    Sustainable agriculture (CA)..............................             497  ...............  ...............
    Sustainable agriculture (MI)..............................             432  ...............             432
    Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)........             149  ...............             149
    Sustainable agriculture systems (NE)......................              59  ...............  ...............
    Sustainable beef supply (MT)..............................             994  ...............             994
    Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources              596  ...............             596
     (VA).....................................................
    Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT)........             449  ...............             449
    Swine waste management (NC)...............................             492  ...............             492
    Synthetic gene technology (OH)............................             167  ...............  ...............
    Technological development of renewable resources (MO).....             295  ...............  ...............
    Tick borne disease prevention (RI)........................              99  ...............              99
    Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA)..........             422  ...............             379
    Tropical aquaculture (FL).................................             238  ...............  ...............
    Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR..................           8,942  ...............           4,471
    Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)......................             596  ...............             596
    Uniform farm management program (MN)......................             298  ...............             298
    Value-added product development from agricultural                      409  ...............             409
     resources (MT)...........................................
    Value-added products (IL).................................             149  ...............  ...............
    Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO)...........  ..............  ...............             750
    Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA).......................           1,788  ...............           1,788
    Water conservation (KS)...................................              78  ...............              79
    Water treatment (RI)......................................             149  ...............  ...............
    Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)...             536  ...............             482
    Weed control (ND).........................................             432  ...............             432
    West Nile virus (IL)......................................             373  ...............             750
    Wetland plants (LA).......................................             596  ...............             336
    Wheat genetic research (KS)...............................             263  ...............             263
    Wheat sawfly research (MT)................................             502  ...............             502
    Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV).           6,130  ...............           6,786
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY)................................             292  ...............             292
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, special research grants..........................         111,534           3,341          101,637
                                                               =================================================
Improved pest control:
    Expert IPM decision support system........................             176             177              176
    Integrated pest management................................           2,707           2,725            2,707
    IR-4 minor crop pest management...........................          10,673          10,485           10,485
    Pest management alternatives..............................           1,608           1,619            1,608
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest control............................          15,164          15,006           14,976
                                                               =================================================
National Research Initiative..................................         166,045         200,000          180,000
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433).........................           5,065           5,098            5,065
Alternative crops.............................................           1,188  ...............             840
Critical Agricultural Materials Act...........................           1,242  ...............           1,242
1994 Institutions research program............................           1,093             998            1,093
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM,TX,MT).......             993  ...............           1,000
Institution challenge grants..................................           4,888           5,500            4,888
Graduate fellowships grants...................................           3,222           4,500            3,222
Multicultural scholars program................................             992             998              992
Hispanic education partnership grants.........................           4,073           3,492            4,073
Capacity building grants (1890 Institutions)..................          11,404           9,479           11,404
Payments to the 1994 Institutions.............................           1,689           2,250            1,689
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions           3,477           2,997            3,500
 education grants.............................................
Secondary agriculture education...............................             994           1,000              994
Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE...........          13,661           9,230           13,661
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)...............................           4,471           3,996            4,471
Federal administration:
    Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA)..............             447  ...............             450
    Agriculture development in the American Pacific...........             548  ...............             548
    Agriculture waste utilization (WV)........................             686  ...............             690
    Agriculture water policy (GA).............................             710  ...............             710
    Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)........             300  ...............             300
    Animal waste management (OK)..............................             333  ...............             299
    Aquaculture (OH)..........................................             447  ...............             447
    Aquaculture (PA)..........................................             248  ...............             248
    Biotechnology (MS)........................................             745  ...............             745
    Botanical research (UT)...................................             636  ...............             886
    Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)........             671  ...............             250
    Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX)..................             248  ...............  ...............
    Center for innovative food technology (OH)................             760  ...............  ...............
    Center for North American studies (TX)....................             199  ...............             199
    Climate forecasting (FL)..................................             894  ...............  ...............
    Cotton research (TX)......................................           1,182  ...............           1,182
    Data information system...................................           2,732           2,750            2,732
    Electronic grants administration system...................           2,235           2,173            2,173
    FECA surcharge............................................  ..............              51   ...............
    Feed efficiency (WV)......................................             159  ...............             160
    Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO)..............             338  ...............  ...............
    Geographic information system.............................           1,391  ...............           1,600
    Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH)..............              99  ...............  ...............
    High value horticultural crops (VA).......................             248  ...............             248
    Information technology (GA)...............................             248  ...............  ...............
    Livestock marketing information center (CO)...............             195  ...............             195
    Mariculture (NC)..........................................             358  ...............             322
    Mississippi Valley State University.......................           1,043  ...............           1,043
    Office of Extramural Programs.............................             445             448              445
    Pasteurization of shell eggs..............................             248  ...............  ...............
    Pay costs and FERS........................................           2,081           2,540            2,540
    Peer panels...............................................             347             349              349
    Phytoremediation plant research (OH)......................             636  ...............             636
    PM-10 air quality study (WA)..............................             435  ...............             435
    Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and                    477  ...............             650
     Extension Center (AL)....................................
    Produce pricing (AZ)......................................              79  ...............  ...............
    Rural systems (MS)........................................             348  ...............             348
    Salmon quality standards (AK).............................             139  ...............             150
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC,TX)............           4,187  ...............           4,187
    Sustainable agriculture development (OH)..................             497  ...............  ...............
    The Land Institute (KS)...................................  ..............  ...............             100
    Urban silviculture (NY)...................................             239  ...............  ...............
    Vitis gene discovery (MO).................................  ..............  ...............             400
    Water pollutants (WV).....................................             596  ...............             600
    Water quality (ND)........................................             431  ...............             431
    Wetland plants (WV).......................................             179  ...............  ...............
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, federal administration...........................          29,466           8,311           26,698
                                                               =================================================
      Total, CSREES R&E.......................................         616,792         514,228          617,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a 
funding level of $178,977,000 for payments made under the Hatch 
Act.
    Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $100,486,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    The Committee is aware of the need for special research 
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand 
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural 
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition 
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be 
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a 
competitive basis.
    Alternative Milk Policies.--The Committee that directs that 
of funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy 
Research Institute, $250,000 shall be provided for 
collaborative work between the University of Missouri and the 
University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an analysis of dairy 
policy changes, including trade related matters, and assist 
Congress in making policy decisions. This project will be a 
one-stop shop for Congressional requests for analysis of 
alternative dairy policies.
    Aquaculture Centers.--The Committee recommends $4,471,000, 
the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
    The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research 
efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes 
Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research 
Institute that is carried out in collaboration with the North 
Central Regional Aquaculture Center.
    Technology Transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to 
continue to support at the fiscal year 2003 level the cotton 
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
    Aquaculture (MS).--Of the $582,000 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 Agricultural and Forestry Experiment 
Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and Extension Center in 
Stoneville.
    Future Foods Initiative.--The Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the Future Foods Initiative at the University of 
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The Committee expects the 
University to use a portion of the funds for research and 
programs associated with the World Food and Health Center.
    International Arid Lands Consortium.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $136,000 for the International Arid 
Lands Consortium for a joint initiative with Hands Together to 
implement a water development plan, for drinking and irrigation 
water, in the Artibonite region of Haiti.
    Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].--The Committee 
directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for 
MATRIC equally between Iowa State University and the Greater 
Des Moines Partnership.
    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 recommends 
$6,786,000 for wood utilization research. Of this amount 
$500,000 is made available for the Mississippi Forest and 
Wildlife Research Center to conduct forest inventories. In 
addition, of this amount, $500,000 is made available to include 
West Virginia in this program.
    Competitive Research Grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and provides funding of $180,000,000 for the program, an 
increase of $13,955,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level. The 
Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of 
these funds available for a program under the same terms and 
conditions as those provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
    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 not less 
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used 
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program 
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $840,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research 
efforts on canola, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
    Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommends 
$13,661,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal 
year 2003 level.
    Higher Education.--The Committee recommends $28,837,000 for 
higher education. The Committee provides $3,222,000 for 
graduate fellowships; $4,888,000 for challenge grants; $992,000 
for multicultural scholarships; $4,073,000 for grants for 
Hispanic education partnership grants; and $3,500,000 for 
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
    The Committee notes that the Department's higher education 
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of 
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs 
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully 
in this program.
    Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving 
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee provides 
$3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible 
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska 
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between 
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee 
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds 
as authorized.
    Federal Administration.--The Committee provides $26,698,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee 
recommends $1,600,000, an increase of $209,000 from the fiscal 
year 2003 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 2003 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.
    The Land Institute.--The Committee recognizes the goals of 
research to develop a variety of diverse perennial grain crops 
that could help prevent soil erosion and water pollution while 
still producing good grain yields. The Committee provides 
$100,000 for Natural Systems Agriculture at The Land Institute 
in Salina, Kansas, for this purpose.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $7,054,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (31 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. 
Beginning with 2001, income funds are also available for 
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On 
the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal 
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of 
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted 
income as follows: 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 $9,000,000. This amount is $1,946,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $450,520,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     422,268,000
Committee recommendation................................     450,084,000

    Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is 
authorized 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 $450,084,000. This amount is $436,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not 
include an increase of $46,000 for FECA administrative charges, 
as requested in the budget.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the 
fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

           COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2003 enacted     2004 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c).......................................         279,390         275,940         279,390
Smith Lever 3(d):
    Farm safety.................................................           5,489  ..............           5,489
    Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]........................          58,185          60,909          58,185
    Indian reservation agents...................................           1,983           1,996           1,983
    Pest management.............................................          10,689          10,759          10,689
    Sustainable agriculture.....................................           4,843           3,792           4,843
    Youth at risk...............................................           8,426           8,481           8,426
    Youth farm safety education and certification...............             496             499             496
1890 colleges and Tuskegee University...........................          31,908          32,117          31,908
1890 facilities grants..........................................          14,903          13,500          14,903
Extension services at 1994 institutions.........................           3,365           3,273           3,273
Grants to Youth Organizations...................................           2,981  ..............           2,981
Renewable resources extension act...............................           4,516           4,093           4,516
Rural health and safety education...............................           2,605  ..............           2,605
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................         429,779         415,359         429,687
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal administration and special grants:
    Ag in the classroom.........................................             695             750             695
    Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)............             129  ..............             130
    Agricultural telecommunications (NY)........................             380  ..............  ..............
    Alabama beef connection.....................................             124  ..............             375
    Beef producers improvement (AR).............................             194  ..............             174
    Botanical garden initiative (IL)............................             238  ..............  ..............
    Conservation technology transfer (WI).......................             497  ..............             500
    Dairy education (IA)........................................             233  ..............             235
    Dairy industry revitalization (WI)..........................             219  ..............             220
    Diabetes detection, prevention (WA).........................             918  ..............             918
    E-Commerce (MS).............................................             373  ..............             373
    Efficient irrigation (NM/TX)................................           2,027  ..............           2,027
    Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)...........................             248  ..............  ..............
    Extension specialist (MS)...................................             149  ..............             149
    Family farm beef industry network (OH)......................           1,377  ..............  ..............
    FECA........................................................  ..............              46  ..............
    Food animal residue avoidance database/FARAD................             795  ..............             795
    Food preparation and marketing (AK).........................             298  ..............             300
    Food product development (AK)...............................             447  ..............             450
    General administration and pay..............................           5,643           6,113           6,113
    Health education leadership (KY)............................             894  ..............             894
    Income enhancement demonstration (OH).......................             239  ..............  ..............
    Iowa vitality center (IA)...................................             278  ..............             280
    National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA).................             197  ..............             250
    National Wild Turkey Federation.............................  ..............  ..............             250
    Nursery production (RI).....................................             248  ..............  ..............
    Nutrition enhancement (WI)..................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
    Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative..........................  ..............  ..............             600
    Oquirrh Institute...........................................  ..............  ..............             300
    Pilot technology transfer (WI)..............................             162  ..............  ..............
    Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS)..........................             336  ..............             336
    Potato pest management (WI).................................             298  ..............             300
    Range improvement (NM)......................................             243  ..............             243
    Resilient communities (NY)..................................             124  ..............  ..............
    Rural business enhancement (WI).............................  ..............  ..............             200
    Rural development (AK)......................................             695  ..............             700
    Rural development (ND)......................................              99  ..............  ..............
    Rural development (NM)......................................             392  ..............             392
    Rural technologies (HI, WI).................................             695  ..............             348
    Urban horticulture (WI).....................................             536  ..............             650
    Urban market development (NY)...............................             124  ..............  ..............
    Web-based agriculture classes (MO)..........................  ..............  ..............             200
    Wood biomass as alternative farm product (NY)...............             194  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, federal administration..........................          20,741           6,909          20,397
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, Extension activities...............................         450,520         422,268         450,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conservation Technology Transfer.--Of the funds provided 
for Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides 
$200,000 for a nutrient management and conservation education 
program to meet the needs of the Wisconsin comprehensive 
nutrient management program in cooperation with Professional 
Dairy Producers of Wisconsin, Dairy Business Association, and 
others. In addition, the Committee provides $300,000 for the 
Dairy Discovery Farm Program.
    Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,200,000 for the 
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the 
National Easter Seal Society.
    Potato Pest Management.--Of the funds provided for Potato 
Pest Management, the Committee provides $150,000 for the 
ongoing effort between the University of Wisconsin, World 
Wildlife Fund, and Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers 
Association. The Committee also directs $150,000 for an ongoing 
project with the University of Wisconsin for pesticide use 
reduction efforts for other commodities.
    Rural Business Enhancement.--The Committee provides 
$200,000 to the University of Wisconsin at Platteville for 
collaborative work with the University of Wisconsin Extension.
    Urban Horticulture.--Of the funds provided for Urban 
Horticulture, the Committee directs $200,000 for University of 
Wisconsin Extension activities, $200,000 for a regional 
diagnostic center at Boerner Botanical Gardens, and $250,000 
for Growing Power of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $46,439,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      62,865,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,711,000

    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 Regional Pest Management Centers 
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or 
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well 
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional 
projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For integrated activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $46,711,000. This amount is $272,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

          COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2003 enacted     2004 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Issues--Plant & Animal Diseases........................             497           2,500             497
Crops at Risk from FQPA: Implementation.........................           1,487           1,497           1,487
Food Safety.....................................................          14,870          14,967          14,870
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems........           4,857           4,889           4,857
Homeland Security...............................................  ..............          16,000  ..............
International Science & Education Grants........................             497           1,000             497
Methyl Bromide Transition Program...............................           3,229           2,498           3,500
Organic Transition Program......................................           2,111             499           2,111
Regional Pest Management Centers................................           4,502           4,531           4,502
Rural Development Centers.......................................           1,503           1,513           1,503
Water Quality...................................................          12,887          12,971          12,887
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          46,439          62,865          46,711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $3,470,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       4,003,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,470,000

    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 outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,470,000. This 
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $721,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         791,000
Committee recommendation................................         736,000

    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 $736,000. This amount is $15,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $682,758,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     694,897,000
Committee recommendation................................     705,552,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] 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 [AQI].--The agency 
collects user fees 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 
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses 
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These 
activities include inspection of certain establishments that 
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, 
and monitoring 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 to support the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research to 
reduce 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 
$705,552,000. This is $22,794,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $288,000 for 
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize authorities and 
resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] to provide 
assistance in response to animal and plant health threats, and 
to allow compensation to certain producers for losses sustained 
in connection with these threats in instances when the 
additional assistance is deemed necessary. The Committee is 
aware of the need to compensate producers for losses associated 
with avocado and citrus production in California, poultry 
losses in California resulting from avian influenza and exotic 
Newcastle disease, goose production losses in South Dakota in 
connection with West Nile virus, and tree losses in Michigan 
due to infestations of the emerald ash borer.
    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      2004 budget       Committee
                                                                 2003 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine inspection.......................           24,152           21,300           24,300
    Cattle ticks.............................................            6,313            6,575            6,534
    Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases..            7,937            9,039            7,987
    Import/export............................................            9,345           12,429            9,640
    Trade issues resolution and management...................           11,452           11,621           11,546
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................           56,449           61,273           57,059
    Screwworm................................................           30,480           30,751           30,552
    Tropical bunt tick.......................................              419            2,916              423
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease exclusion......................          146,547          155,904          148,041
                                                              ==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance................           93,216           93,962           96,038
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement...........            8,483            9,566            9,211
    Emergency Management System..............................            8,985           11,693            9,075
    Pest detection...........................................           22,261           27,051           22,577
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, plant and animal health monitoring..............          132,945          142,272          136,901
                                                              ==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
    Aquaculture..............................................            1,388              968            1,250
    Biocontrol...............................................            9,059            9,329            9,270
    Boll weevil..............................................           61,597           26,722           51,720
    Brucellosis eradication..................................           10,191            8,747           10,303
    Chronic wasting disease..................................           14,836           14,979           20,000
    Emerging plant pests.....................................           74,800          109,463           86,400
    Golden nematode..........................................              626              971              642
    Grasshopper..............................................            4,341            4,287            5,709
    Gypsy moth...............................................            4,647            4,755            4,725
    Imported fire ant........................................            2,421            2,140            2,429
    Johne's disease..........................................           20,863            3,104           21,500
    Low pathogen avian influenza.............................  ...............            2,003  ...............
    Noxious weeds............................................            1,899            1,142            1,953
    Pink bollworm............................................            1,987            1,710            2,031
    Plum pox.................................................            4,025            3,471            4,041
    Pseudorabies.............................................            4,258            4,344            4,316
    Scrapie eradication......................................           15,373           17,068           15,700
    Tuberculosis.............................................           14,798           15,135           14,925
    Wildlife services operations.............................           68,587           65,706           72,186
    Witchweed................................................            1,520            1,536            1,526
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease management.....................          317,216          297,580          330,626
                                                              ==================================================
Animal care:
    Animal welfare...........................................           16,301           14,704           16,400
    Horse protection.........................................              490              493              490
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, animal care.....................................           16,791           15,197           16,890
                                                              ==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
    Biosecurity..............................................  ...............            2,920  ...............
    Biotechnology regulatory services........................            3,825            3,946            3,921
    Environmental services...................................            2,534            2,615            2,598
    Plant methods development laboratories...................            7,991            8,260            8,208
    Veterinary biologics.....................................           14,535           16,281           14,894
    Veterinary diagnostics...................................           17,209           20,973           18,697
    Wildlife services methods development....................           14,875           13,647           16,450
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, scientific and technical services...............           60,969           68,642           64,768
                                                              ==================================================
Contingency fund.............................................            4,076            4,139            4,112
APHIS information technology infrastructure..................            4,214            4,602            4,214
Physical security............................................  ...............            6,273  ...............
FECA surcharge...............................................  ...............              288  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, salaries and expenses...........................          682,758          694,897          705,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is unable to provide the full increases 
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide 
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health 
programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue 
use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation 
monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified 
in the President's budget and any additional emergencies as the 
Secretary determines necessary.

Pest and Disease Exclusion

    AQI.--For fiscal year 2004, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $24,300,000 for the AQI appropriated account. 
The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 above the 
budget request to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections 
of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for 
movement from the State of Hawaii to the continental United 
States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands.
    The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols 
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in 
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while 
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment 
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards 
of warm weather States.
    The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and 
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii 
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to 
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection 
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal 
year 2003. The Committee also encourages the agency to 
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff 
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental 
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to 
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS 
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art 
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry, 
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned 
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous 
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
    The Committee urges APHIS to continue working closely with 
U.S. avocado growers to implement procedures for the 
importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to 
report on the status of Mexican avocado imports, including 
problems in pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel, and the 
diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved 
destinations. The Committee directs APHIS to include 
independent, third party scientists in the development of any 
pest risk assessment for Mexican avocados, prior to the 
publication of any such pest risk assessment in the Federal 
Register. The Committee also directs APHIS to report to 
Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the approved 
areas or lengthening time periods for the importation of 
Mexican avocados.
    Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee provides 
$57,059,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, 
of which no less than the fiscal year 2003 level shall be used 
to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the 
United States as well as activities at U.S. borders.

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring

    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
provides $95,888,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and 
Surveillance account. The Committee provides continued funding 
at the fiscal year 2003 level for a cooperative agreement with 
the Wisconsin Animal Health Consortium for ongoing activities 
related to animal and animal-based product tracking and 
database management. The Committee also provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for the National Farm 
Animal Identification and Records Project. The Committee 
provides an increase of $250,000 for the New Mexico Rapid 
Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection and 
reporting system for infectious animal diseases. The Committee 
expects APHIS to work with the Wisconsin Animal Health 
Consortium, the National Farm Animal Identification and Records 
Project, and the Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to 
coordinate activities and report to the Committee by March 1, 
2004 on the development of a National Animal Tracking System.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 level, to continue the cooperative agreement 
with the Murray State University, Breathitt Veterinary Center, 
Hopkinsville, KY, to determine the impact on animal health from 
common agricultural chemical usage.
    The Committee provides $250,000 toward an alkaline digester 
in the State of Kansas to destroy and dispose of animal 
carcasses suspected of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy 
infection and other diseases.
    The Committee provides $250,000 to address bio-safety 
issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial 
pathogens in the State of Vermont.
    The Committee is greatly concerned about the growing 
incidence around the world of animal disease, such as chronic 
wasting disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, monkeypox, 
and others which pose grave threats to the Nation's livestock 
sector and the public health. The Committee feels there should 
be an enhanced relationship between Federal and State 
veterinary programs to better coordinate all activities related 
to the exclusion, management, or eradication of these diseases. 
Toward that objective, the Committee requests that APHIS work 
with the States to further develop a Federal/State partnership 
to make more efficient use of limited resources, including the 
need for expanded laboratory capacity. The Committee requests a 
report on this subject by March 1, 2004, which will include a 
plan to work with States to improve existing laboratory 
capacity.
    The Committee provides $250,000 to establish a national 
institute at Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, 
mitigation, and communication for genetically modified 
agricultural products.
    Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $728,000 for the animal and 
plant health regulatory enforcement account for additional 
activities in support of increased Animal Welfare Act 
compliance inspections.
    The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal 
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work 
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means 
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding 
these activities.
    Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $90,000 for the emergency management systems 
program.
    Pest Detection.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$316,000 for pest detection. The Committee is concerned about 
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional 
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country 
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources. The 
Committee is aware of interest by the Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services to move toward completion of 
the Western Escambia County Agriculture Interdiction Station 
and encourages APHIS to work with the State of Florida to 
determine and, if prudent, develop a collaborative agreement 
for operations at this station.

Pest and Disease Management

    Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,250,000 for the 
aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the 
fiscal year 2003 level to continue telemetry and population 
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically 
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant 
and pelican populations.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee provides $51,720,000 for fiscal 
year 2004 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This 
funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a 
30 percent cost share and possible exceptions to address 
special funding requirements arising from extraordinary 
circumstances in some States.
    Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $112,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the 
bruccellosis program. This amount continues funding at the 
fiscal year 2003 level 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 that 
surround Yellowstone National Park.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis 
Committee, and encourages the coordination of Federal, State, 
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in 
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally 
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    Chronic Wasting Disease.--The Committee is very concerned 
about the escalating number of deer and elk in different 
regions of the U.S. testing positive for chronic wasting 
disease and provides an increase of $5,118,000 to expand the 
chronic wasting disease certification and control program to 
include additional surveillance and disease control activities 
with free-ranging cervids, and to increase State testing 
capacity for the timely identification of the presence of this 
disease.
    The Committee is aware of the development of a rapid prion 
assay that would more effectively test for BSE in meat 
processing facilities and for chronic wasting disease in the 
field for evaluating wild game. The Committee directs the 
Department to undertake a review of this testing technology 
and, if warranted, to move forward with the use of this 
technology.
    Of the amount provided for chronic wasting disease, 
$2,000,000 is for the State of Wisconsin, $250,000 is for the 
State of Utah, and $500,000 is for the Conservation Medicine 
Center of Chicago which is a collaboration between the 
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Loyola 
University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, and the 
Brookfield Zoo.
    Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $11,600,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for emerging 
plant pests. Within this total, the Committee provides an 
additional $5,000,000 for Pierce's disease; $5,000,000 for 
citrus canker; and the fiscal year 2003 level for the Asian 
long-horned beetle program in Illinois and New York, of which 
no less than $1,500,000 shall be for activities in the area of 
Chicago, IL. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for sudden oak death syndrome. The Committee 
provides $1,000,000 for activities related to the emerald ash 
borer in the State of Michigan. The Committee expects the 
Secretary to make funds available from the CCC for activities 
related to these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2004, as 
necessary.
    The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation 
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and 
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation 
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately 
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive 
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate 
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate 
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the 
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses 
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an 
adequate compensation plan, and to report back to the Committee 
on its recommendations no later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative 
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture 
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The 
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents 
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and 
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the 
citrus longhorned beetle.
    Grasshopper.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,368,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the grasshopper 
account. Of this amount, no less than $1,000,000 shall be for 
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah: 
$150,000 to prepare necessary environmental documents, and 
$500,000 to continue control measures. The Committee also 
provides an additional $300,000 for grasshopper and Mormon 
cricket activities in the State of Nevada, including survey, 
control, and eradication of crickets.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee provides $2,429,000 for 
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing 
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery 
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of 
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of 
promising control agents. The Committee continues funding at 
the fiscal 2003 level for the State of Tennessee for additional 
control activities.
    Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$637,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for Johne's disease 
to expand the agency's efforts to coordinate State 
certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide 
additional assistance to States to develop herd management 
plans that comply with APHIS's national standards for 
certification. The Committee expects APHIS to work with the 
Agricultural Research Service to coordinate activities to 
research and develop an effective diagnostic test for Johne's 
disease with appropriate field validation and methods 
development.
    Noxious Weeds.--The Committee provides $1,953,000 for the 
noxious weeds account. This amount includes an increase of 
$150,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the 
availability and distribution of biological control organisms 
used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee 
provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for an 
invasive species program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in 
Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps 
to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation 
problem.
    The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat 
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and 
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture 
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an 
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological 
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as 
necessary.
    Scrapie Eradication.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$325,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the scrapie 
eradication program, and directs the Secretary to use funds 
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional eradication 
activities in fiscal year 2004.
    Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $14,925,000 for the 
tuberculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000 
shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned 
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for 
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the 
agency to increase technical and operational assistance to 
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of 
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also 
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing 
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and 
livestock. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use funds 
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and 
eradication activities in fiscal year 2004.
    Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee does not 
concur with the President's request to reduce funding in the 
wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to 
assume a larger share of the costs associated with preventing 
and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee restores fiscal 
year 2003 funding to continue cooperating with States to 
conduct wildlife management programs such as livestock 
protection, migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species 
damage, property damage, human health and safety, and 
threatened and endangered species protection.
    The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies 
vaccination program and provides an increase of $1,250,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 level for rabies control activities 
in fiscal year 2004. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
use funds from the CCC, as necessary, for additional control 
activities in fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level to fully implement the recommendations of the 
Aviation Safety Review Committee.
    Of the amount provided to conduct wildlife monitoring and 
surveillance activities to prevent the spread of foreign animal 
diseases in the United States, the Committee provides an 
increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for 
remote diagnostic and wildlife disease surveillance activities 
with North Dakota State University and Dickinson State 
University.
    The Committee is concerned about the growing number of 
livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals, 
especially wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest 
regions of the United States. The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for integrated predation 
management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, 
Arizona, and New Mexico. Of this amount, no less than 
$1,050,000 shall be available for activities in the Western 
Great Lakes States. A portion of the funding shall be made 
available to assist livestock producers who are interested in 
the proper use of non-lethal alternatives and best management 
practices in order to fully ensure that all such methods are 
exhausted before any lethal control occurs.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for the Tri-state predator control program for 
livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the 
increase in federally listed endangered species, the States' 
operations accounts for wildlife services have suffered 
financially.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for a cooperative agreement with the University of 
Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services 
Operations in the State of Georgia to address the fluctuations 
in game bird and predator species resulting from recent changes 
in land use throughout the southeastern United States.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for the operation of the 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 continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level 
for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and 
operate a comprehensive brown tree snake prevention and 
detection program for Hawaii and to initiate eradication and 
control of coqui frogs.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for wildlife service operations with the South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the growing 
demands of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased 
animals.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for the management of beavers in Mississippi. The 
Committee commends the agency's assistance in cooperative 
relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce beaver 
damage to cropland and forests.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level to continue control measures for minimizing 
blackbird damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South 
Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding 
level for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 to assist 
the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning displaced 
wildlife back to its natural habitat. This rescue initiative 
shall be a cooperative effort between Federal, State, local, 
and private sources.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003 
level for a cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho 
Sandhill Crane Lure Crop Project for integrated predator 
management activities to reduce sandhill crane depredations and 
grain crop damage in Eastern Idaho.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003 
level for beaver control in the State of North Carolina, 
$150,000 for beaver control in the State of Kentucky, 
$1,300,000 for the Predator Research Station in the State of 
Utah, an increase of $200,000 for the control of birds in the 
State of New York, an increase of $225,000 for the control of 
blackbirds in the State of Kansas, and an increase of $250,000 
to address wildlife damage in the State of New Hampshire.
    The Committee notes the growing problem due to cormorants 
in the Lake Champlain basin and urges APHIS to provide support, 
as deemed necessary, to assist in the management of cormorants 
in the region.

Animal Care

    Animal Welfare.--The Committee provides $16,400,000 for the 
Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
    The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized 
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the 
President's budget.

Scientific and Technical Services

    Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee provides $18,697,000 
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2004. 
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to update equipment needed to 
test certain animal samples in the State of Colorado.
    Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee 
provides $16,450,000 for wildlife services methods development. 
Of this amount, the Committee provides an increase of $200,000 
from the fiscal year 2003 level to enhance existing research 
efforts at the National Wildlife Research Center field station 
in Starkville, MS, for resolving problems regarding bird damage 
to aquaculture farms in the Southeast. The Committee also 
provides an increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 
level to expand the existing program at the Jack Berryman 
Institute for addressing wildlife damage management issues, 
including wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and 
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi 
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The Committee 
emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the 
Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research 
Center. The remaining increase, beyond pay costs, is for 
maintenance and operations necessary to support wildlife 
methods development at the National Wildlife Research Center in 
Fort Collins, CO.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2003 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active 
agricultural areas.
    The Committee provides $750,000 for the National Wildlife 
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities 
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with 
wildlife populations and human health.
    Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained 
in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356-
S410, and Conference Report 108-10 that the Committee directed 
to be funded for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for fiscal 
year 2004 unless specifically mentioned herein.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee 
expects APHIS 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, 
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, 2003....................................      $9,924,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       4,996,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,996,000

    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.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2003 and budget request levels:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004      Committee
                                                                 enacted       budget request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and               4,957             4,996             4,996
 preventative maintenance.................................
Miami Animal Import Center, FL............................            4,967   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.....................            9,924             4,996             4,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $4,996,000. This amount is $4,928,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2003 appropriation.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $75,210,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      75,071,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,263,000

    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 
$75,263,000. This amount is $53,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $167,000 for 
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    Included in this amount is $1,500,000, an increase of 
$477,000 over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, for the 
National Organic Program. The Committee believes that part of 
this funding should be used to hire an Executive Director for 
the National Organic Standards Board, to create a Peer Review 
Panel to oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic 
certifiers, and to pay expenses for volunteer technical 
advisors to assist in the scientific evaluation of materials 
considered for inclusion of the National List.
    The Committee provides $14,586,000 for the Pesticide Data 
Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 
Pesticide Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-
based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food 
processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers. 
The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the 
Food Quality Protection Act, which requires thorough re-
evaluation of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses 
on individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain 
the availability of critical products which allow the 
production of safe and affordable foods.
    The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to 
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing 
organizations to promote wild salmon.
    The Committee provides $6,179,000 for costs associated with 
the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.
    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 again to give full consideration to 
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, 
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood 
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should 
coordinate with other regional marketing entities.
    The amount provided also includes $6,175,000 for the 
microbiological data program so that baselines may be 
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne 
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with 
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the 
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to 
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested 
parties.
    The Committee is aware of the transportation cost 
differentials among those U.S. farmers and ranchers having 
access to low cost ground transportation and those who lack 
such access, and recommends that the Agency provide technical 
assistance to those departments of agriculture serving U.S. 
farmers and ranchers outside of the 48 contiguous States in 
identifying and evaluating transportation alternatives that 
would allow these producers to compete globally.
    The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and RMA 
on the collection of segregated data on the production and 
marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be 
included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding 
agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002 
Farm Bill. Specifically, data should be collected on prices, 
yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2003........................................     $61,619,000
Budget limitation, 2004.................................      62,577,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,577,000

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading 
and classing cotton, tobacco, 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 $62,577,000. 
This amount is $958,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 level.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                    MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $14,910,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      15,392,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,392,000

    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 appropriations Acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2002-2004:

         SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2002-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2002 actual       2003 estimate      2004 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)..........    $6,139,942,369      $5,798,093,321    $5,927,395,463
    Less Rescission.....................................          -468,370  ..................  ................
    Transfer from CCC...................................  ................         250,000,000  ................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service..........................    -5,172,458,000      -4,745,663,000    -4,699,661,000
    Commerce Department.................................       -79,126,813         -75,223,778       -79,724,463
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers..................................    -5,251,584,813      -4,820,886,778    -4,779,385,463
                                                         =======================================================
Budget Authority........................................       887,889,186       1,227,206,543     1,148,010,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year............       107,824,527         192,156,087  ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations....................  ................          13,000,000  ................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation................................       995,713,713       1,432,362,630     1,148,010,000
                                                         =======================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Purchases.......................       399,934,661          15,000,000       400,000,000
        State Option Contract...........................  ................           5,000,000         5,000,000
        Removal of Defective Commodities................  ................           1,000,000         1,000,000
        Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Project...............         6,000,000  ..................  ................
        Emergency Surplus Removal.......................       206,898,187         183,232,371  ................
        Diversion Payments..............................  ................  ..................  ................
        Direct Payments.................................       172,867,307  ..................  ................
        Disaster Assistance.............................  ................             500,000  ................
        Lamb Grading and Certification Support..........           592,057             950,626  ................
        Estimated Future Purchases......................  ................         304,036,633       415,575,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity Procurement..................       786,292,212       1,406,719,630       821,575,000
                                                         =======================================================
    Administrative Funds:
        Commodity Purchase Service......................         6,906,166          10,733,000        11,043,000
        Marketing Agreements & Orders...................        10,359,248          14,910,000        15,392,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative Funds...................        17,265,414          25,643,000        26,435,000
                                                         =======================================================
          Total, Obligations............................       803,557,626       1,432,362,630       848,010,000
                                                         =======================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year..............       192,156,087  ..................       300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $15,392,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $482,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2003 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 directs the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to 
assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, salmon nuggets, 
and pouched salmon and determine whether there is a surplus and 
continued low prices. If a surplus exists, the Committee 
expects the Department to purchase salmon for use in schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs, and for 
humanitarian aid.
    The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing 
authorities under the section 32 program through emergency 
surplus removal and other commodity purchases, including fruit 
and vegetable purchases as mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill, to 
continue the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program during fiscal 
year 2004. The Committee requests a report on the feasibility 
of continuing the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program on a 
permanent basis under current section 32 authorities within 120 
days of the enactment of this Act.
    The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law 
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000 
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other 
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the 
language included in section 53 of the conference report 
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be 
made according to Congressional intent.
    In the utilization of section 32 funds for USDA feeding 
programs, the Department of Agriculture shall not exclude or 
discriminate against farmer-owned cooperatives when considering 
contracts.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $1,338,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,338,000

    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 
$3,338,000. This amount is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,000,000 be 
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection for the creation of specialty markets.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $39,690,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      41,688,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,638,000

    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 $35,638,000. This amount is $4,052,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not 
include $41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested 
in the budget.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue the market 
catalog reporting.
    The Committee understands GIPSA is assessing how the agency 
can facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting, 
not supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee 
encourages the Department to establish a cooperative 
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the 
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and provides $500,000 to 
continue a study of process verification systems with 
protocols.
    The Committee recognizes that the Livestock Mandatory Price 
Reporting Act has been in effect since October, 1999, and 
encourages GIPSA to complete implementation of the Swine 
Contract Library.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2003........................................     $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2004.................................      42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,463,000

    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 $42,463,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 2003 level.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $595,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         792,000
Committee recommendation................................         611,000

    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 $611,000. This amount 
is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $754,821,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     797,149,000
Committee recommendation................................     783,761,000

    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 $783,761,000. This amount is 
$28,940,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This 
amount does not include $1,034,000 for FECA administrative 
charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $26,017,000 above 
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for Federal food safety and 
inspection. This increase includes funding for an additional 80 
in-plant FSIS inspectors, bringing the total number of FSIS 
slaughter inspectors to 7,680.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $67,000 from the 
fiscal year 2003 funding level for activities related to the 
Codex Alimentarius.
    Humane Slaughter.--Activities relating to humane slaughter 
are fully funded. In fiscal year 2003, the Committee provided 
FSIS with $5,000,000, available for 2 years, and has included 
statutory language in this bill to require that FSIS hire no 
less than 50 FTEs to work solely on the enforcement of the 
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act [HMSA]. The Committee 
understands that FSIS plans to have hired 38 of these FTEs by 
the end of fiscal year 2003, and expects the remainder of the 
FTEs to be hired during fiscal year 2004. The Committee expects 
FSIS to maintain funding for these FTEs in its fiscal year 2005 
budget request. Further, the Committee expects that the 17 
District Veterinary Medical Specialist positions created in 
fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal year 2004.
    Import Inspection.--The Committee remains aware that FSIS 
uses two methods to determine whether the inspection systems of 
foreign countries that sell meat and poultry to the United 
States meet the same standards as our domestic meat inspection 
system. These methods include USDA audits of foreign plants and 
laboratories, and USDA inspection of foreign meat and poultry 
at the U.S. border. The Committee has provided an increase of 
$1,777,000 for USDA to hire seven additional foreign program 
auditors and to increase the number of equivalency review 
trips. The Committee understands that this funding will allow 
the number of countries reviewed by USDA auditors to increase 
from 33 to 40. Further, the Committee requests notification 
when the additional seven auditors are hired, identification of 
the countries they will be auditing, and the number of audits 
they will be performing. In addition, the Committee requests 
information regarding the total number of countries and audits 
planned for inspection by USDA in fiscal year 2004.
    When a significant number of plants initially audited in a 
particular country fail to meet U.S. safety standards, the 
Committee continues to expect the Department to exercise all 
authorities to limit imports from all plants in that country 
which have not been audited in the previous 12 months, as well 
as imports from those plants that failed initial audits, until 
subsequent findings establish that proper inspection systems 
are in place.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2004 budget      Committee
                                                                   2003 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
    Federal.....................................................         675,086         713,686         701,103
    State.......................................................          49,379          50,232          49,854
    International...............................................          16,005          18,682          18,380
Codex Alimentarius..............................................           2,556           2,677           2,629
FAIM............................................................          11,795          11,872          11,795
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         754,821         797,149         783,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $614,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         916,000
Committee recommendation................................         635,000

    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 $635,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with 
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified 
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
    The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International 
Development 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.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3, 
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such 
as the commodity price support and production adjustment 
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the 
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation 
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the 
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating, 
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured 
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop 
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop 
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides 
certain administrative support services to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency 
[RMA].

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from    Total, FSA,
                                                                Appropriations      program        salaries and
                                                                                    accounts         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.........................................          970,389          279,209        1,249,598
Budget estimate, 2004........................................        1,016,836          294,096        1,310,932
Committee recommendation.....................................          988,768          284,941        1,273,709
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [FSA], 
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the 
Committee recommends $1,273,709,000. This amount is $24,111,000 
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does 
not include $110,000 for FECA administrative charges, as 
requested in the budget.
    The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under 
to downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised 
about the criteria being used for further staff reductions and 
the potential impact these reductions will have on farm 
services in all States. Until these concerns have been 
addressed, States in compliance with the original Espy 
reorganization plan should not be required to undertake further 
staff reductions.
    The Committee provides $750,000 for comprehensive 
environmental and cultural resources training, review and 
compliance programs for employees and provides $250,000 for 
third party review of and assistance for environmental and 
cultural resource documentation and assessments. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Department to identify and partner with 
a private sector entity to develop this program. Preference 
should be provided to an entity that has a demonstrated track 
record in successfully developing environmental training 
programs for Federal employees of other government agencies and 
should be accredited by a land grant university or other higher 
learning institution. Special consideration should be given to 
identifying an entity that also meets the general guidelines of 
a small business with annual receipts under $6,000,000 in 
accordance with the NAICS guidelines.
    The Committee notes the FSA headquarters in the State of 
Alaska lacks the necessary staff to adequately support an area 
one-fifth the size of the United States. The Committee has 
provided $100,000 to hire an information technology specialist 
and a clerical support person in the Palmer office.
    Peanut Promotion Assessments.--Historically, the Farm 
Service Agency [FSA] has deducted assessments, which are 
mandated by Federal and State laws, when peanuts go into the 
United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] loan program. 
These assessments are used to fund research and promotion 
programs that peanut growers vote for in referenda conducted 
pursuant to Federal and State laws.
    In 2002, FSA did not collect any peanut promotion 
assessments. Because of this inaction, great confusion occurred 
in the marketplace and inhibited the ability of peanut growers 
to fund their research and promotion programs. Therefore, the 
Committee directs FSA to continue to collect assessments as 
mandated by Federal and State statutes when peanuts are placed 
under loan. Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this 
Act, FSA shall provide a report to the Committee on its efforts 
to implement this directive.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $3,974,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,974,000

    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 $3,974,000 for State mediation 
grants. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         100,000

    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 
$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.

           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 $759,000 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 $759,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan 
varies from 1 to 7 years.
    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 
$3,248,475,000. This amount is $663,585,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2003 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 the fiscal year 
2003 and the budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004      Committee
                                                                 enacted           budget        recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................          129,155           140,149           129,158
    Guaranteed............................................          993,500         1,000,000           950,000
Farm operating:
    Direct................................................          601,068           650,000           601,068
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        1,688,950         1,400,000         1,200,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................          397,400           266,249           266,249
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................            1,987             2,000             2,000
Boll weevil eradication loans.............................          100,000            60,000           100,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans...................................        3,912,060         3,518,398         3,248,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                  Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Insured     Guaranteed                               Transfer to   Total ACIF
                                     loan         loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003...........      118,917      107,884      226,801          7,948       277,361      512,110
Budget estimate, 2004..........      124,675       86,020      210,695          8,000       290,136      508,831
Committee recommendation.......      115,192       79,090      194,282          7,948       283,020      485,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2003 enacted     2004 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct...............................................           14,995           30,945           28,518
        Guaranteed...........................................            7,451            5,400            5,130
    Farm operating:
        Direct...............................................          103,744           93,730           86,674
        Guaranteed unsubsidized..............................           53,540           46,620           39,960
        Guaranteed subsidized................................           46,893           34,000           34,000
    Indian tribe land acquisition \1\........................              178  ...............  ...............
    Boll weevil eradication loans \2\........................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies................................          226,801          210,695          194,282
ACIF expenses................................................          285,309          298,136          290,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 is calculated for this program.

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $70,248,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      78,488,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,422,000

    The Risk Management Agency performs administrative 
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that 
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
    ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance 
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for 
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands 
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and 
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are: 
research and development; insurance services; and compliance, 
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and 
regulations development.
    The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program 
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation 
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which 
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional 
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act 
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of 
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at 
fixed intervals.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk 
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$71,422,000. This amount is $1,174,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $18,000 
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee is concerned that there are several 
provisions in the crop insurance program that have been harmful 
to potato producers. Therefore, RMA is directed to work with 
potato producers to identify these problems and report its 
findings to the Committee within 180 days of the enactment of 
this Act.
    The Committee does not include the administration's 
legislative proposal to reduce the crop insurance 
administrative expense reimbursement from 24.5 percent to 20 
percent. This proposal has the potential to disrupt crop 
insurance services to farmers by forcing consolidation or 
withdrawal of companies that currently provide crop insurance. 
In 2002, crop insurance provided more than $3,800,000,000 to 
farmers affected by drought, and farmers' reliance on the 
program continues to grow. The Committee believes that 
renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement would be a 
more appropriate means by which to adjust the reimbursement 
rate.
    The Risk Management Agency continues to develop a Cost of 
Production [COP] crop insurance pilot program that includes 12 
crops: almonds, apricots, cotton, corn, cranberries, 
nectarines, onions, peaches, soybeans, sugarcane, rice, and 
wheat. The Committee instructs RMA to include hard, soft, and 
durum sub-classes of wheat when implementing the COP pilot 
program for wheat.
    The Committee is aware of the benefits to producers of risk 
management programs like the Dairy Options Pilot Program. The 
program introduces dairy farmers to the futures and options 
markets and gives producers first-hand experience in buying put 
options contracts to ensure a minimum price for their milk. The 
Committee encourages the Agency to continue funding this 
important risk management program.
    The Committee is aware that the cap on RMA's assigned risk 
pool has not been updated for States since 1997, but that new 
negotiations should be complete in fiscal year 2004, and take 
effect by the 2005 crop year. However, since 1997, many States 
have experienced extreme weather and other conditions which 
have caused significantly higher losses than anticipated when 
their current caps were negotiated. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends that RMA should begin now to work with individual 
States, as appropriate, to adjust their risk pool caps in order 
to more adequately reflect the needs of each State.
    The Committee encourages RMA to develop and implement an 
actuarially-sound rider option to the current crop insurance 
program for avocados to cover losses due to quarantines, and to 
do so in close cooperation with the California avocado 
industry. The Committee further requests the Department to 
report on the economic impacts of recent domestic quarantines 
and to analyze options for protecting avocado growers against 
future losses due to such regulatory actions. The Committee 
expects the Department to report within 6 months on its 
progress in developing a program for a rider option for avocado 
crop insurance that will address future quarantines imposed due 
to any injurious pest or disease, including fruit fly 
infestation.

                              CORPORATIONS


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................  $2,886,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\ \2\...........................   3,368,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................   3,368,000,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available 
until expended, are provided.
\2\ Does not include a reduction of $81,000,000 to reflect the impact of 
Section 723 as proposed in the budget request.

    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.
    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, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
    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 $100 per crop per policy.
    The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended 
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more 
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and 
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows 
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by 
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage 
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual 
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative 
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and 
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs 
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an 
investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further 
improve Federal crop insurance.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, estimated to be $3,368,000,000. This amount is 
$482,000,000 more than the current fiscal year 2003 estimate.

                   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.
    Corporation activities are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 
Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the 
1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 
Act); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.
    Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a 
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend 
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and 
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for 
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A 
national Dairy Market Loss Payment [DMLP] program is 
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter 
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk 
price support program is also provided to support the price of 
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
    The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar 
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan 
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse 
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18 
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for 
refined beet sugar.
    In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands 
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve 
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program 
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife 
habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is 
funded through the CCC.
    The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for 
other conservation programs, including the conservation 
security program and the grassland reserve 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, 2003 \1\................................ $16,285,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................  17,275,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................  17,275,000,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.

                       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 fiscal year 2004 to be $17,275,000,000. This 
amount is $990,000,000 more than the current estimated 
limitation.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2003........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       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. 
The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site 
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup 
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are 
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste 
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. 
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 limitation.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $740,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         918,000
Committee recommendation................................         761,000

    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 
$761,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.
    The Committee continues its opposition to administration 
proposals to fund technical assistance for Farm Bill 
conservation programs from discretionary accounts provided in 
this Act. The Committee provides statutory language under the 
Conservation Operations, the Watershed Surveys and Planning, 
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and the 
Watershed Rehabilitation Program accounts to prohibit the use 
of any funds appropriated under these accounts to provide 
technical assistance to carry out programs listed in section 
1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
    The Committee notes that section 2701 of the Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides for the certification 
of third party providers to assist in the implementation of 
conservation programs. However, it should be noted that the 
stated purpose of this provision was to meet the immediate 
technical assistance needs to carry out the many new 
conservation programs included in the 2002 Farm Bill. This 
authorization was not intended to supplant current USDA 
conservation positions, but to supplement them during this 
period of increasing workload in much the same way the Farm 
Service Agency would hire temporary employees to implement new 
or time sensitive commodity programs. The Committee does 
recognize that the inclusion of third party providers will meet 
many of the short term objectives of competitive sourcing and, 
therefore, strongly believes that any positions employed under 
the authorization of section 2701 be applied to any numerical 
competitive sourcing goals that may be assigned to the 
Department.s

                 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, 2003....................................    $819,641,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     703,605,000
Committee recommendation................................     826,635,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $826,635,000. This amount is $6,994,000 more 
than the 2003 level. This amount does not include $198,000 for 
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation 
activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific 
conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise 
made available to States.
    Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained 
in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356-
S410, and Conference Report 108-10 that were directed to be 
funded by the Committee for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for 
fiscal year 2004, unless specifically mentioned herein.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue the Georgia 
Agricultural Water Conservation Initiative.
    The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national 
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the Delta of 
the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $900,000 for a study to characterize 
the on-site consequences, estimate off-site impacts, and 
develop strategies to facilitate land use change while 
preserving critical natural resources. The agency is directed 
to work in cooperation with Clemson University.
    The Committee provides $290,000 to expand the cooperative 
efforts with the Claude E. Phillips Herbarium in the State of 
Delaware.
    The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership 
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    The Committee provides $23,500,000 for the Grazing Lands 
Conservation Initiative, of which no less than $550,000 shall 
be for grazing land conservation activities in the State of 
Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to obtain and evaluate 
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52 
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the 
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The 
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction 
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Western Kentucky University.
    The Committee provides $700,000 to continue support of 
agricultural development and resource conservation on the 
Island of Molokai in the State of Hawaii.
    The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach 
effort so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers 
in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural 
resources. The Committee provides $860,000 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 $1,500,000 for technical assistance 
for the Franklin County Lake Project in the State of 
Mississippi.
    The Committee expects NRCS to continue to support all 
existing offices in the State of Alaska at current levels. 
Also, the Committee notes that currently all administrative 
functions for NRCS are handled out of Spokane, Washington--
1,000 miles from the Alaska headquarters. The Committee directs 
the agency to provide an additional two staff positions to 
enable the Palmer office to manage human resources, budget, and 
contracting operations in Alaska.
    The Committee directs the agency to work with soil 
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the 
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties, 
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and 
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
    The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address the erosion in 
the Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in Western Iowa. The 
Committee is aware that the Eastern Red Cedar and other 
invasive species of woody plants are having a very negative 
effect on prairies in the Loess Hills, a unique soil important 
to many rare animals and plants. The Committee encourages the 
Department to support efforts to minimize this problem.
    The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil 
tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate 
poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve 
farmers' economic returns and minimize potential water quality 
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from 
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
    The Committee provides $1,425,000 for the Delta 
Conservation Demonstration Center in Washington County, 
Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $200,000 to continue the Idaho One-
Plan in Canyon County, Idaho.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion 
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to 
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This 
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia 
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, 
Natural Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE to identify and 
characterize phosphorous movement in soils to determine 
appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the 
management of phosphorous. This information is critical in 
helping 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 $350,000 for evaluating and 
increasing native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance 
for the Tanana River watershed project in Salcha, Alaska.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for the continued 
development of a geographic information system database in the 
State of South Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation 
program data at the field level for watershed analysis 
purposes.
    The Committee provides $9,500,000 for Snow Survey and Water 
Supply Forecasting, which includes full funding for activities 
related to snowpack telemetry [SNOTEL].
    The Committee provides $600,000 to provide technical 
assistance for improved nutrient management and protection of 
water resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
    The Committee provides $450,000 for the Little Red River 
Irrigation Project in the State of Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $3,000,000 to provide technical 
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey 
Program.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for cattle and nutrient 
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi 
Conservation Districts.
    The Committee provides $400,000 to continue the Certified 
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation 
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
    The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the establishment of 
a Geographic Information System Center of Excellence in 
cooperation with West Virginia University.
    The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed 
management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the 
National Pork Producers Council.
    The Committee provides $175,000 for a cooperative agreement 
between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of 
soil erosion and water quality.
    The Committee provides $6,459,000 for the Wildlife Habitat 
Management Institute [WHMI] for the development and transfer of 
fish and wildlife technology to States and field offices. The 
Committee expects WHMI to expand the development of technology 
to improve the habitat of declining species such as the 
bobwhite quail, sage grouse, and associated species.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the 
conversion to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, 
Idaho, in order to reduce water quality impairments resulting 
from the return of water runoff to the aquifer by way of 
agricultural drain wells.
    The Committee provides $900,000 for the New Jersey State 
Conservation Cost Share Program.
    The Committee provides $600,000 to continue assistance for 
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the 
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to provide expedited 
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project 
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to 
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture 
and Consumer Services.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for the ecological site 
description project in the State of Idaho. The Committee 
directs the agency to work in cooperation with the Idaho 
Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2004 for 
flood protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the 
City of Belzoni, Humphreys County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot 
project.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for geographic information 
system based mapping and hyperspectral imaging of agricultural 
lands in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides $2,500,000 for a native grassland 
demonstration project in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
    The Committee provides $1,100,000 for the Dry Creek project 
in the State of Utah.
    The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
drainage improvements on Watkins Drive in the City of Jackson, 
Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
drainage improvements in the City of Port Gibson, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the 
environmental benefits of using vegetative buffers along 
waterways. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with 
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for conservation programs 
in the Great Lakes Watershed.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with 
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, 
regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a 
working arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy 
Forage Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin and the 
possible establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at 
that location.
    The Committee provides $6,000,000 to implement the Source 
Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be 
used in States with the greatest needs.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming 
soil survey mapping project.
    The Committee notes that the Natural Resource Inventory 
[NRI] has not included the State of Alaska due to factors such 
as accessibility of remote locations, climate, and staff 
availability. The Committee believes that natural resources 
data collection in Alaska is of critical national importance. 
As such, the Committee provides an additional $1,500,000 for 
NRI pilot activity development in Alaska and directs NRCS to 
provide no later than December 30, 2004 a report describing the 
technology, personnel, and other resources needed to include 
Alaska in the NRI annual reporting system.
    The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land 
Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin to help students 
learn about resource conservation.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for 
technical assistance in the State of North Carolina to address 
concerns with the application of phosphorous on agricultural 
lands.
    The Committee provides $200,000 for the Old Canton Road 
erosion control project in Hinds County, Mississippi.
    The Committee is disturbed that the State of Alaska has 
largely been ignored thus far in the implementation of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill). The 
Committee notes that while Alaska comprises 20 percent of the 
United States, it has received minimal funding from 
participation in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, as well as conservation and watershed technical 
assistance. The Committee directs the Secretary to take all 
necessary measures to maximize participation and to provide a 
fair allocation of resources under the Farm Bill to Alaska. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to report on her actions by 
January 15, 2004.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for additional conservation 
technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil Conservation 
Districts.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the 
effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other 
watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in 
cooperation with Utah State University.
    The Committee provides $2,100,000 for the Georgia Soil and 
Water Conservation Commission cooperative agreement.
    The Committee provides $467,000 for bank stabilization and 
channel improvement work in the Oaklimeter Watershed in the 
State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $100,000 for a surface water 
impoundment in Choctaw County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the Richland Creek 
Watershed in Rankin County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $780,000 for the Lower Payette Ditch 
Irrigation Diversion Project in the State of Idaho.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the West Cary Watershed 
and Farmland Protection Project in the State of North Carolina.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for range revegetation at 
Fort Hood in the State of Texas.
    The Committee understands that pursuant to a 1988 
memorandum of understanding, Indian Conservation Districts were 
transferred from the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the 
Department of the Interior to NRCS. This transfer has 
significantly increased the workload for NRCS offices in States 
with former Indian Conservation Districts. The Committee is 
concerned that funding for affected offices has not kept pace 
with the increased workloads and that services to these 
communities may have suffered. Within 120 days of enactment of 
this legislation, NRCS shall review all offices that 
incorporated Indian Conservation Districts and assess service 
delivery, staffing needs, and funding requirements. The agency 
shall report its findings to the Committee on Appropriations no 
later than 60 days after completion of its review.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for the Innovative 
Environmental Technologies program in the State of Indiana.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for technical assistance 
for a water project in Hardin County, Kentucky.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the McCarthy Watershed 
project in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Northern Iowa.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for the continued 
development of a conjunctive use optimization model in the 
Pawcatuck Watershed in the State of Rhode Island.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging 
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce 
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
    The Committee provides $900,000 for a surface water 
impoundment in the Port De Luce Watershed in the State of 
Louisiana.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a study on the 
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management 
practices on water quality. The Committee directs the agency to 
work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for 
conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Sand County Foundation in the State of 
Wisconsin to carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test 
project.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer 
Farm project.
    The Committee provides $600,000 to carry out riparian 
restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in 
the State of New Mexico.
    The Committee provides $150,000 for the evaluation of 
manure management systems in the State of New York. These 
systems should be developed in a manner to control phosphorous, 
nitrogen, pathogens, and odors through the implementation of 
best alternative manure management systems that will help 
maintain economic viability on farms in the Northeast.
    The Committee provides $600,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of 
Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the 
diversification of agricultural production in the area.
    The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of 
North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in 
1993, and the local community has been working with NRCS for 
many years on options to address flooding in this basin. To 
advance these efforts, the Committee provides $600,000 to the 
North Central Planning Council so that it may work with the 
Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board on a Devils Lake 
water utilization test project to determine to what extent 
excess water from Devils Lake can be used to irrigate land for 
beneficial use.
    The Committee provides $1,490,000 to continue the Red River 
Basin Flood Prevention Project in the State of North Dakota in 
cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Research Center.
    The Committee provides $450,000 for assistance in the 
Iroquois River Watershed in Iroquois County, Illinois.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for the Illinois River 
Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of 
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for a wildlife habitat 
education program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with 
the National Wild Turkey Federation.
    The Committee provides $900,000 to continue implementation 
of pilot projects designed for nutrient reducing waste 
treatment systems for dairy operations in the State of Florida.
    The Committee has been informed on the importance of 
Eelgrass habitats to marine ecosystems along the coast of the 
Atlantic Ocean. Eelgrass is a primary source of food for many 
plants and animals in areas such as Narragansett Bay in the 
State of Rhode Island and provides many additional conservation 
benefits, such as protection of the coastline from erosion. The 
Committee urges the Department to give consideration to the use 
of EQIP funding for projects in Rhode Island, and similar 
areas, that will enhance these habitats.
    Section 2503 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 authorizes a Farm Viability Program through which 
producers may receive assistance for planning and 
implementation of strategies for long-term economic viability 
of farming operations, including conservation practices. The 
Committee provides $200,000 to establish a Pilot Farm Viability 
Program Project in the State of Vermont.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for assistance for an On 
Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
    The Committee provides $750,000 to continue the Delta Water 
Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for an erosion control 
project in Rankin County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources for conservation education.
    Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less 
than $11,269,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
    The Committee notes the need for extensive rehabilitation 
and restoration of public lands in Western States, such as 
Nevada, which is required to reduce hazardous fuels on those 
lands, reduce the threat of wildfires, and conserve wildlife 
habitat. The Committee believes there is a need to develop a 
program and location related to productive and successful 
native plant materials and restoration. Toward that goal, the 
Committee provides $500,000 for the establishment of a plant 
materials center in the vicinity of Fallon, Nevada.
    The Committee provides $375,000 for the planning and design 
of a new storage facility at the Alaska Plant Materials Center.

                     FARM BILL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004...................................    $432,160,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Farm Bill Technical Assistance account funds all of the 
technical assistance costs of certain conservation programs 
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (Public Law 107-171). These are the same conservation 
programs included in NRCS's Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Programs account--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
Ground and Surface Water Conservation, Klamath Basin Water 
Conservation, Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve 
Program, and Conservation Security Program. The Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Programs account funds the financial 
assistance needed to deliver conservation measures on 
agricultural lands. The Farm Bill Technical Assistance account 
would fund the technical assistance needed to plan, design, 
layout, and install conservation systems funded by the 2002 
Farm Bill programs. This would include both NRCS's technical 
assistance costs, as well as the costs for certified, non-
Federal technical service providers to provide technical 
assistance to farmers and ranchers for 2002 Farm Bill programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not provide funding for the Farm Bill 
Technical Assistance Account. This subject is addressed under 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment.

                     WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $11,124,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

    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 $10,000,000. This amount is 
$1,124,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $109,285,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

    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 $55,000,000. This 
amount is $54,285,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in 
the State of West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete 
measures regarding the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed, Upper 
Deckers Creek Watershed, and Little Whitestick Creek Channel 
improvements in the State of West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of 
West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Square Butte Project in the State of North Dakota.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for Big Creek/Hurricane Creek, Moniteau Creek, East 
Locust Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek, 
McKenzie Creek, Hickory Creek, East Fork of Grand River, 
Troublesome Creek, Willow Cravens Creek, and Upper Locust Creek 
projects in the State of Missouri.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed, 
Lahaina Watershed, and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed projects 
in the State of Hawaii.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Kuhn Bayou Project in the State of Arkansas.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to provide 
assistance for the Ditch 26 Improvement Project in Jonesboro, 
Arkansas.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile 
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T 
Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Little Paint, 
Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, and West Tarkio 
Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Dry Gulch-Martin Lateral, Muddy Creek-Orderville, Tri-Valley, 
and Coal Creek projects in the State of Utah.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for small watershed projects in the State of 
Vermont.
    The Committee provides funds for the Muenster Lake Project 
in the State of Texas.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Piney Creek Watershed Project in Yazoo 
County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides funding for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in 
the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the construction of the Town Creek Floodwater 
Retarding Structure #8 in Lee County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to begin 
assistance in the Marmaton Watershed in the State of Kansas.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $29,805,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,805,000

    The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for 
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation 
of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 
4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313 of 
Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012), and by 
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (Public Law 107-171).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee 
recommends $29,805,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal 
year 2003 level.
    The Committee directs that funding under this program be 
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of 
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure 
public safety.

                 resource conservation and development

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $50,668,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      49,943,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,000,000

    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 $51,000,000. This amount is 
$332,000 more than the 2003 level.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing 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.

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $632,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         913,000
Committee recommendation................................         651,000

    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 
$651,000. This amount is $19,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.
    The Committee is aware the Department has previously 
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership 
[NRDP]. The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development 
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural 
development at the State and local level. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue support for this 
important organization from within available funds.
    The Committee recognizes that the town of Tchula, 
Mississippi, has requested technical and program assistance for 
housing, business, and other essential community needs. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional 
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve 
funds to assist this Delta community.
    The Committee applauds the Department for establishing the 
Centralized Service Center [CSC] in St. Louis, Missouri, which 
has resulted in significant cost savings. The Committee 
encourages the Department to work within USDA and with other 
Federal agencies to explore the possibility of turning this 
facility into a Government-wide Federal debt collection center.
    The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations 
of the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo, 
Hawaii, to address the continuing and increasing demands for 
marketing and purchasing cooperatives.
    The Committee is aware of and supports the ongoing 
activities of the Farm Worker Institute for Education and 
Leadership Development [FIELD] and encourages the Secretary to 
support this effort through technical assistance programs 
available within the Department.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is 
restricting not-for-profit developer-owners of essential 
community facilities from entering into contracts to provide 
services with a third party not-for-profit entity for childcare 
and other related services. The Committee strongly encourages 
the Secretary to address this policy prohibition to allow such 
activities and insure the government's interests are protected 
with third party contracts. The developer-owner should be 
responsible for securing Departmental approval for any changes 
in existing contracts addressing issues that include services 
provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.
    The Committee notes that section 6102 of the Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized the expansion of 
911 access for rural areas subject to regulations issued by 
USDA. To date, USDA has not begun the rulemaking process for 
this program. The Committee encourages the Department to 
initiate the rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible to 
expand and improve 911 access for rural areas.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $901,837,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     477,864,000
Committee recommendation................................     769,479,000

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural 
development State directors for their priority setting on a 
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to 
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account 
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any 
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for 
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community 
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain 
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, 
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential 
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those 
providing or supporting overall community development, such as 
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic 
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational 
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve 
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of 
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue 
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the 
majority of available funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct 
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community 
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community 
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities. 
Communities that have lower population and income levels 
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed 
$1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private nonprofit 
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made 
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train, 
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and 
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct 
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development; and to establish centers for training, technology, 
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the 
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 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 $769,479,000. This amount is $132,358,000 
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee recognizes that the direct community 
facilities loan program is an essential tool in addressing 
basic needs in rural America. The Committee also notes that 
this program has a negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004, 
the first time since the inception of the program in 1974. 
Demand for this program far exceeds available funding. To meet 
the needs for our rural communities, the Committee strongly 
encourages the Department to consider establishing a program 
level of $500,000,000 to meet these needs.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2003           2004 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
    Community facility direct loan subsidies..............            15,762  ................  ................
    Community facility grants.............................            25,766            17,000            24,838
    Economic impact initiative grants.....................            24,837  ................            25,000
    High energy costs grants..............................            29,805  ................            30,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, community.................................            96,170            17,000            79,838
                                                           =====================================================
Business:
    Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies.......            35,498            29,280            27,000
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            47,679            44,000            48,000
    Rural business opportunity grants.....................             3,974             3,000             4,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            87,151            76,280            79,000
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........           102,642            35,132            30,141
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           612,374           345,952           577,000
    Solid waste management grants.........................             3,500             3,500             3,500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           718,516           384,584           610,641
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           901,837           477,864           769,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for 
transportation technical assistance.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural 
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
    The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for 
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native 
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American 
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development 
and assistance initiative.
    Community Facilities Loans and Grants.--The Committee is 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications relating to community facilities for the 
following: Alaska Rural Telecommunications Service; Illinois 
Valley Community Arts and Economic Center, OR; Maine Rural 
Community Innovation Center, MA; Noxubee County Multi-Purpose 
Facility, MS; Franklin Parish School Renovations, LA; Union and 
Wallowa Counties Rail Line, OR; City of Port Gibson, MS; 
Mississippi Blood Services, MS; Southern Plain Conference 
Center, OK; Elmo, UT; Casey County Agricultural Center, KY; 
Montana Food Bank, MT; Coushatta Tribe, LA; Jefferson Street 
Drainage Improvement Project, LA; Grand Isle Multiplex Center, 
LA; Golden Meadow Multi-purpose Facility, LA; City of Bozeman, 
MT; City of Port Gibson, MS; Vineland Produce Auction 
Association, NJ; City of Bayfield, WI; Bawcomville Flood 
Control Pump, LA; White County Emergency Warning System, AR; 
Central Upper Peninsula Fitness, Growth and Learning Center, 
MI; Village of Owego, NY; Heritage Christian Home Center, NY; 
Salkehatchie Leadership Center, SC; Miles City Improvement 
District, MT; West Baton Rouge Parish Communications Center, 
LA; Donaldsonville Natural Gas Line, LA; Public Ice Facilities, 
Bristol Bay Borough, AK; Kawerak's Bering Region Cultural 
Center, Nome, AK; and the Southern Training and Social Services 
Complex, LA.
    Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes 
statutory language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural 
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme 
unemployment or severe economic depression.
    High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory 
language to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy 
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities 
Service.
    Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for rural business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following: 
Santiam Canyon Economic Development, OR; Quinebaug-Shetucket 
Corridor, CT; and the Louisiana Communication and Information 
Technology Capability Project, LA.
    The Committee includes statutory language to provide for a 
community planning pilot program in the State of Alaska.
    Rural Business Enterprise Grants.--The Committee is also 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for 
the following: Sustainable Systems, MT; Mission Valley Market, 
MT; Power Applications Resource Center at Montana State 
University-Northern; University of Montana Business Incubators, 
MT; Grants to Public Broadcasting Systems; New Product 
Development and Commercialization Center, OK; Calista Native 
Corporation, AK; Vineland Produce Auction Association, NJ; 
Southern Maryland Regional Processing Kitchen and Agriculture 
Business Incubator, MD; Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, 
CT; Technology Venture Center TechRanch, MT; New York 
Agricultural Development, NY; Agricultural Innovation Center, 
NJ; Hibbing Technology Business Center, MN; Kershaw County 
Industrial Park, SC; Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural 
Partnership, MA; Continental Structural Plastics, LA; Quachita 
Terminal and Dock, LA; Bering Straits Native Corporation, Nome, 
AK; Vermont Maple Industry Council; Covington Northern Kentucky 
Regional Farmers Market; Daviess County BioTech Cluster 
Initiative, KY; Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; Chesapeake 
Innovation Center, MD; Center for Blackbelt Development, GA; 
Rural Enterprise Assistance Program, NE; Mobile Slaughter 
Facility, OR; Oregon Center for Rural Policy; Southern Ohio 
Diversification Initiative, OH; and Chesapeake Fields 
Institute, MD.
    The Committee includes statutory language to provide no 
less than $5,000,000 in grants to statewide private nonprofit 
public television systems.
    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.
    Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for 
the following projects: Iron County Sewer and Waste Water 
Treatment Facility, UT; City of Oxford, MS; Port Gibson, MS; 
City of Wasilla, AK; Pueblo of Picuris, NM; Santo Domingo 
Pueblo, NM; Pueblo of San Felipe, NM; Carnuel MDWWCA, NM; 
Pueblo of Laguna, NM; Pueblo of Acoma, NM; Pueblo of Pojoaque, 
NM; Miles Crossing Sanitary Sewer District, OR; Neuse Regional 
Water and Sewer Authority, NC; Dillon County Bingham Project, 
SC; Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, MT; Alger County, MI; City 
of Watervliet, MI; Alachua County, FL; Desoto County, FL; St. 
John the Baptist Drinking Water, LA; Dallas County, AR; Brushy 
Island Water Improvement Association, AR; Albany Water 
Conservation, OR; Miles City Improvement District, MT; 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, LA; Neshoba County Central Water 
Association, MS; Adair County, KY; Russell County, KY; and 
Hardin County, KY.
    The Committee includes statutory language to make up to 
$30,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants 
available for village safe water for the development of water 
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the 
Department to consider applications to the national program 
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations 
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe 
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the 
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $24,000,000 
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized 
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to 
$13,000,000 available for the circuit rider program.
    The Committee includes statutory language ensuring that 
Alaska receives 5 percent of the total amount available for the 
circuit rider program.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
Union-Lincoln Water Supply Initiative to provide technical 
assistance relating to alternative sources of water for the 
Sparta Aquifer that supplies Northern Louisiana and Southern 
Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $3,000,000 to fund the activities of 
the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority [NGPRA], as 
authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. Within 180 days of enactment of this Act, NGPRA shall 
provide the Committee with a report on its anticipated fiscal 
needs in future years. The report should also explain the 
NGPRA's grant awarding criteria. Furthermore, the Committee 
expects that Northern Great Plains, Inc. will establish the 
policies and procedures of the Authority as required by law.
    Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The 
Committee provides $2,000,000 for the Individually Owned 
Household Water Well Program as authorized in section 6012 of 
Public Law 107-171. The Committee encourages the Department to 
work with interested parties, including the Foundation for 
Affordable Drinking Water, to implement this new program.
    Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The 
Committee provides a significant increase in the technical 
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the 
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the 
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from 
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide 
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
    Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of 
the need for landfill improvements for Point Barrow, Alaska, 
and urges the Department to give priority consideration for an 
application for a solid waste management grant.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                                     RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2003           2004 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations............................................          144,789           147,520           140,922
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account.....          429,564           482,787           439,453
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans               37,587            41,562            37,920
     Program Account......................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................            3,062             3,462             3,182
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account...........            4,163             4,850             4,283
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD salaries and expenses.....................          619,165           680,181           625,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $625,760,000 for salaries and 
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development 
Programs. This amount is $6,595,000 more than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $169,000 for 
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for 
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to 
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best 
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior 
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, 
any function that affects eligibility determination, 
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies 
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of 
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
    The Committee is aware that USDA Rural Development-Alaska 
staff works with the Denali Commission. The Committee expects 
the Department to look favorably on a request for Anchorage 
office space for Rural Development staff to share with the 
Denali Commission staff in the Commission's office. If such a 
request is agreed to, USDA is directed to reimburse the Denali 
Commission through the existing cooperative interagency 
agreement.

                         Rural Housing Service

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends total appropriations of 
$1,505,651,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is 
$61,791,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help 
housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and 
State rental assistance, and other related activities that 
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2003 levels and the 2004 budget request:

                                              LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     2003         2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................       1,037,866        1,366,462        1,359,417
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase....................       2,621,781        2,500,000        2,500,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance...................         223,537          225,172          225,172
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................          34,772           35,003           35,004
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................          99,350          100,000          100,000
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................         115,053           70,830          115,052
    Site loans (sec. 524)....................................           5,013            5,046            5,045
    Credit sales of acquired property........................          11,988           11,500           11,500
    Self-help housing land development fund..................           4,979            5,000            1,623
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF............................................       4,154,339        4,319,013        4,347,768
                                                              ==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
    Farm labor housing loan level............................          37,480           42,167           37,480
    Farm labor housing grants................................          17,698           17,000           17,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Labor Program..............................          55,178           59,167           54,480
                                                              ==================================================
Grants and payments:
    Mutual and self-help housing.............................          34,773           34,000           34,000
    Rental assistance........................................         721,281          740,000          721,281
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................          42,222           41,500           46,222
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing grants and payments...............         798,276          815,500          801,503
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, RHS loans and grants............................       5,007,793        5,193,680        5,203,751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    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, 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. 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.
    An increased priority should be placed on long term 
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing 
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and 
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of 
existing projects.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    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 2003, as well 
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2003 levels and the 
2004 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                             -----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2003 level       2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct..............................................          201,035           126,671          126,018
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase...................           31,986            39,250           39,250
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance..................              402               653              653
    Housing repair (sec. 504)...............................           10,786             9,612            9,612
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)...............            4,471             5,950            5,950
    Rental housing (sec. 515)...............................           53,649            30,464           49,484
    Site loans (sec. 524) \1\...............................               55   ...............  ...............
    Credit sales of acquired property.......................              928               663              663
    Self-help housing land development fund.................              220               154               50
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies.................................          303,532           212,764          231,680
                                                             ===================================================
Administrative expenses.....................................          429,564           482,787          439,453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $721,281,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     740,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     721,281,000

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
established a rural rental assistance program to be 
administered through the rural housing loans program. The 
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income 
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental 
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, 
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly 
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare 
agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over 
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing 
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; 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 $721,281,000. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The section 521 rental assistance program is the largest 
single line item request in the Department's fiscal year 2004 
budget request for the Rural Development mission area. The 
Committee is concerned that as of March 31, 2002, over 19,000 
units of rental assistance were unused. Given the tremendous 
need for this assistance, including the large number of rent 
overburdened tenants, the Committee requests that the Secretary 
make the necessary changes to effectively minimize this unused 
portion of rental assistance.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $34,772,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,000,000

    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 $34,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This amount is $772,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $42,222,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      41,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,222,000

    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.
    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 $27,500, 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, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. 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 $46,222,000. This amount is $4,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee provides $5,000,000 to administer a 
demonstration housing program for agriculture processing 
workers in the States of Alaska, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to administer the 
Demonstration Housing Grants for Agriculture Processing Workers 
through non-profit community-based organizations, including 
cooperatives, and fund grants of up to 75 percent of total 
development costs for each project awarded. The Department 
should also require on-site tenant services in the selection 
criteria. The Committee provided funding for this purpose in 
fiscal year 2001 and requests the Department to take into 
consideration difficulties encountered previously and make 
necessary changes in any notice of availability of funds. The 
Committee also encourages the Department to issue a notice for 
availability of funds within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee is concerned that only a few States benefited 
from the Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grant Program in 
fiscal year 2003, and encourages the Secretary to consider an 
allocation process that ensures that no State or Territory 
receives more than 5 percent of available funds. Priority 
should be given to entities that have experience in 
homeownership education and/or reducing delinquencies and 
foreclosures.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2003 levels and 
the budget request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2003 level      2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................           31,295           31,500           31,295
Supervisory and technical assistance.........................              992  ...............              992
Rural housing preservation grants............................            9,935           10,000            8,935
Demonstration housing grants for agricultural processing       ...............  ...............            5,000
 workers.....................................................
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................           42,222           41,500           46,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Subsidy
                                        Loan level    level      Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003..................     37,480      18,373     17,698
Budget estimate, 2004.................     42,167      18,018     17,000
Committee recommendation..............     37,480      16,015     17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized 
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor 
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the 
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and 
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent 
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for 
construction of new structures, site acquisition and 
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and 
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining 
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants, 
the Committee recommends $33,015,000. This amount is $3,056,000 
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service

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

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                               2003 level       2004 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................           39,740            40,000            40,000
Direct loan subsidy.......................................           19,179            17,308            17,308
Administrative expenses...................................            4,163             4,850             4,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2004, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee recommends a total loan level of $40,000,000. This 
amount is $260,000 more than the 2003 loan level.
    The Committee encourages the agency to consider the 
following for intermediary relending loans: LED 
Microenterprise, LA; Forest County Technology, PA; and the 
Clarion County Economic Development, PA; and Women in 
Technology in Hawaii and Wisconsin.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                               2003 level       2004 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................           14,869            15,002            15,002
Direct loan subsidy \1\...................................            3,176             2,792             2,792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 
$2,792,000. This amount is $384,000 less than the fiscal year 
2003 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $3,000,000 
provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of 
credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $8,941,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      11,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,967,000

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions, 
which only need to provide 5 percent. 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.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $8,967,000 for rural cooperative 
development grants. This amount is $26,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2003 appropriation.
    Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the 
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through 
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
Appropriate Technology.
    The Committee has included language in the bill that not 
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or 
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide 
assistance to small, minority producers.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
consider a grant application from the Rural Information 
Technology Cooperative, IA.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $14,870,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      14,370,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $14,370,000 for Rural Empowerment 
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is 
$500,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the 
funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third 
round enterprise communities.

                        Renewable Energy Program

Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      $3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,000,000

    Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements 
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide 
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, 
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy 
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the renewable 
energy program. In fiscal year 2003, $23,000,000 from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation was provided to fund this program.
    The Committee encourages the Department to give 
consideration to applications for loans and grants for the 
renewable energy program for the following: Montana Bio-
Refinery Project, MT; Biodiesel Feedstock Feasibility Study, 
MT; Agri-Waste to Ethanol Program, MN; Ethanol Feedlot Project 
in Mead, NE; and Ecofuels Project in Wisconsin and Iowa.

                        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

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and 
telecommunications programs.
    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 2004, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans 
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2003 level      2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................          120,316          240,000          240,000
        Direct, Muni.........................................           99,350          100,000        1,000,000
        Direct, FFB..........................................        2,500,000        1,500,000        2,000,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................        1,150,000          700,000          750,000
        Guaranteed...........................................           99,350          100,000          100,000
        Guaranteed, Underwriting.............................        1,000,000  ...............        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................        4,969,096        2,640,000        5,090,000
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................           74,542          145,042          145,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................          298,050          250,000          250,000
        Direct, FFB..........................................          120,000          100,000          120,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          492,592          495,000          515,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan authorizations.........................        5,461,608        3,135,042        5,605,000
                                                              ==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent \1\................................            6,870  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Muni \1\.....................................            4,004  ...............  ...............
        Direct, FFB \2\......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate \2\............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................               79               60               60
        Guaranteed, Underwriting \2\.........................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................           10,953               60               60
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent \1\................................            1,275  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate................................              149              125              125
        Direct, FFB \2\......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................            1,424              125              125
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan subsidies..............................           12,377              185              185
                                                              ==================================================
Administrative expenses......................................           37,587           41,562           37,920
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications               49,964           41,747           38,105
       Loans Programs Account................................
                                                              ==================================================
          (Loan authorization)...............................        5,461,608        3,135,042        5,605,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for these programs.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Direct loan  Administrative
                                Loan level     subsidy       expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.........      173,503         2,394          3,062
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\....  ............  ...........          3,462
Committee recommendation \1\.      173,503   ...........          3,182
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this
  program.

    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 2004, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a loan level of $173,503,000. This 
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                         LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2003 level      2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
    Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
        Direct loans.........................................          300,000           50,000          300,000
        Grants...............................................           46,636           25,000           40,000
    Broadband Program:
        Direct loans.........................................  ...............           40,000           40,000
        Treasury rate loans..................................  ...............          255,963          255,963
        Guaranteed loans.....................................  ...............           40,000           40,000
        Grants...............................................            9,935            2,000           10,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations.........          356,571          412,963          685,963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                            LOANS AND GRANTS

                                   [Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                  2003 level      2004 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
    Direct loan subsidies \1\................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Grants...................................................           46,636           25,000           40,000
Broadband Program:
    Direct loan subsidies....................................  ...............            1,976            1,976
    Treasury subsidies.......................................  ...............            5,580            5,580
    Guaranteed subsidies.....................................  ...............            1,560            1,560
    Grants...................................................            9,935            2,000           10,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, grants and loan subsidies.......................           56,571           36,116           59,116

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for this program.

    The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 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, Telemedicine, and Broadband 
Program, the Committee recommends $59,116,000. This amount is 
$2,545,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of 
this amount, the Committee has provided $15,000,000 for public 
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational 
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert 
from analog to digital operations.
    In addition, of the funds provided, $10,000,000 in grants 
shall be made available to support broadband transmission and 
local dial-up Internet services for rural areas. The Department 
should continue to provide financial support in addition to the 
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan 
accounts.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to the following applications for grants and 
loans: Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network; Caswell 
Foundation, NC; Rural Information Technology Cooperative, IA; 
Louisiana Online; Pioneer Public T.V., MN; Maui Community 
College Skybridge Interactive Network, HI; Jamerson Rural 
Nevada Small Business Project; Nurses for Tomorrow, WA; SWIFT 
Cyber Group, WA; REAPNET Program in Bowling Green, KY; Montana 
Agriculture Knowledge Network; Kentucky Partnership for Farm 
Family Health and Safety in Bowling Green, KY; and National 
Rural Telework Institute of Appalachia, OH.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 2003....................................        $595,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................         786,000
Committee recommendation................................         611,000

    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 $611,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee is aware of the innovative work in Iowa and 
Wisconsin to make milk available through school vending 
machines. Due to their success in improving child health and 
nutrition, the Committee supports expanding these pilot 
programs with available funding.
    The Committee has provided increases throughout FNS to 
promote healthy eating and to combat obesity. According to USDA 
statistics, since 1980, the percentage of children who are 
overweight has nearly doubled, and the percentage of 
adolescents who are overweight has nearly tripled. Almost 9 
million young Americans, or about 15 percent of all children, 
are overweight. This number continues to increase, putting 
these children and adults at a higher risk for health problems 
including diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and other 
ailments. The Committee believes it is imperative that USDA 
maintain and increase obesity prevention and nutrition 
education activities, and work with other government and 
private entities to provide the public with appropriate, up-to-
date information on healthy eating and exercise habits.
    The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit 
groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida, 
whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and 
nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover 
fresh produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of 
volunteers. The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and 
distributed locally, statewide and throughout the United States 
to a network of participating social service agencies serving 
the homeless and low-income households. The Committee believes 
the activities carried out by these organizations are extremely 
worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their 
efforts in any way possible.
    The Committee is aware of the efforts of Share Our Strength 
and its Operation Frontline program to improve the eating 
habits, food budgeting skills, and overall self-confidence and 
sufficiency of program participants. The Committee encourages 
the Under Secretary to work with Operation Frontline, as well 
as other innovative organizations, to identify funding which 
may be available to expand their efforts.
    The Committee notes the growing problem of childhood 
obesity and recent reports that many school children receive a 
substantial percentage of their calories from sweetened drinks, 
candy, and high fat snacks. Likewise, many non-subsidized 
school lunches are high in fat content and low in certain 
nutrients linked to school performance such as Omega 3 fatty 
acids. The Committee directs the Food and Nutrition Service to 
work aggressively to develop food products for the school lunch 
program that are appealing to children, high in nutrition, and 
will foster lifelong healthy eating patterns. The Committee 
also notes that learning disabilities and behavioral disorders 
have been linked to low serum levels of Omega 3 fatty acids. 
Therefore, particular attention should be paid to developing 
food choices that are high in Omega 3 fatty acids. FNS should 
develop incentives to encourage schools to serve healthy food 
choices and should impose disincentives to schools which 
continue to offer high fat and sugar content foods to children 
either through the school lunch program or other sources.
    The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry is scheduled to consider the reauthorization of Child 
Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] during the 108th 
Congress. The following programs are included in the 
reauthorization: National School Lunch Program, School 
Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program, Summer Food Service 
Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Nutrition 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 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.
    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 electronic access 
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to 
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition 
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide 
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs 
specifically tailored to the needs of their 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.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000 
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to 
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and 
administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program [TEFAP].
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 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.
    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. Funds for 
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Nutrition Programs 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.

                        child nutrition programs


                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Section 32
                               Appropriation    transfers       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.........      5,834,480     4,745,663    10,580,143
Budget estimate, 2004........      6,718,780     4,699,661    11,418,441
Committee recommendation.....      6,718,780     4,699,661    11,418,441
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 
Russell 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 for 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 2004 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. On July 1, 1999, 
the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless Summer 
Food Service Program was 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 apply 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 
        2004, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.9 billion school lunches 
        including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.9 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 29.1 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 2004, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.9 
        billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.5 billion at reduced price. Over 
        17 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. These schools receive higher rates of 
        reimbursement in both the free and reduced-price 
        categories. In fiscal year 2004, the program will serve 
        an estimated 1.5 billion breakfasts to a daily average 
        of 9.1 million children.
          (d) State Administrative Expenses.--The funds may be 
        used for State employee salaries, benefits, support 
        services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made 
        the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 
        percent of certain Federal payments in the second 
        previous year. In fiscal year 2004, $140,240,000 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 2004, 
        approximately 138.5 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 2004, 
        approximately 1.9 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.--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 2004, approximately 112.4 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 106.4 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 2004, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 17.7 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 13.8 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $6,718,780,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $4,699,661,000, for a total program of $11,418,441,000. 
This amount is $838,298,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation.
    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                     2003 estimate     2004 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program.........................................        6,074,648        6,683,704        6,683,704
School Breakfast Program.....................................        1,660,870        1,797,923        1,797,923
State administrative expenses................................          133,583          140,240          140,240
Summer Food Service Program..................................          334,686          308,653          308,653
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................        1,904,494        2,019,045        2,019,045
Special Milk Program.........................................           16,449           15,270           15,270
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support......          435,334          431,309          431,309
Coordinated review system....................................            5,080            5,235            5,235
Team nutrition...............................................           10,025           10,025           10,025
Food safety education........................................            1,000            1,000            1,000
School Breakfast Grant Startup Program.......................            3,278  ...............  ...............
Common Roots Program.........................................              199  ...............  ...............
Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center......................              497  ...............  ...............
Child nutrition program pay costs............................  ...............               37               37
Child nutrition program integrity funds......................  ...............            6,000            6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition. 
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training 
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance 
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management 
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and 
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for 
other activities.
    The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food 
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety 
education program.
    The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to 
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25 
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option. 
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in 
increasing participation in the CACFP program.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 [WIC]

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $4,696,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   4,769,232,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,639,232,000
    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.8 
million participants at an average food cost of $36.39 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2004.
    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 WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] has 
historically been 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 $4,639,232,000. This amount is $56,768,000 
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    Although less than the President's request, this funding 
level is adequate to support the approximately 7.78 million 
women, infants, and children estimated in the President's 
budget. Updated estimates since the budget was submitted in 
February have revealed lower than projected participation rates 
in fiscal year 2003 and food costs that have decreased by 
approximately $0.50 per person per month. However, there have 
also been increases due to recent infant formula contracts with 
decreased rebates. All of these factors were taken into 
consideration when calculating the appropriation for the WIC 
program.
    The Committee provides $5,000,000 for a childhood obesity 
pilot project, $10,000,000 for breastfeeding support 
initiatives, and $30,000,000 for a management information 
system initiative. This funding also maintains a WIC funding 
reserve of $125,000,000, the same level as fiscal year 2003, to 
become available if the Secretary deems necessary.
    The Committee is aware that the WIC Farmers' Market Program 
provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income mothers and 
children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but local 
farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides $25,000,000 
for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and directs the 
Secretary to obligate these funds within 45 days.
    The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure 
funding, as well as funding requested by the President for a 
study on the effectiveness of the WIC program.
    While the Committee continues to support and encourage 
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important 
means of participation referral to other health care services, 
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC 
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care 
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program 
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC 
plays an important role in screening and referral to other 
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention 
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and 
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the 
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's 
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the 
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost 
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in 
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by 
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses 
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those 
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal 
agency.
    To ensure equitable and fair access for all WIC agencies to 
the WIC State Management Information Systems, Breastfeeding 
Peer Counseling, and Childhood Obesity Prevention Project 
funds, the Committee directs USDA to partner with WIC public 
health nutritionists and agency directors to consider the 
methodologies for the distribution of those funds.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department has 
published interim infant formula cost containment regulations 
with no public comment. The Committee strongly encourages USDA 
to work with WIC State agency directors and other interested 
parties to review the interim regulations and propose 
regulatory changes to ensure maximum participant benefits.

                           food stamp program


                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          TEFAP
                                              Expenses      Amount in    Puerto Rico    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve                    purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003......................    22,772,692     2,000,000     1,401,000       140,000    26,313,692
Budget estimate, 2004.....................    24,203,176     2,000,000     1,402,805       140,000    27,745,981
Committee recommendation..................    24,203,176     2,000,000     1,402,805       140,000    27,745,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stamp benefits 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 Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 
2002, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 
2007.
    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 benefits, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by 
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household 
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty 
food plan.
    At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number 
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the 
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal 
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it 
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases. 
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the 
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted 
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from 
issuance of coupons.
    As of May 2003, 46 Electronic Benefits Transfer [EBT] 
projects were operating statewide in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. EBT is 
also operating in parts of California, Delaware, Guam, Iowa, 
Maine, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.
    Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized 
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and 
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility 
to establish a nutrition 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 Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, 
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through 
fiscal year 2007. 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.
    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. The Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the 
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control 
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face 
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or 
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the 
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund'' 
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
    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. The Department of Agriculture has 
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in 
providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends 
$27,745,981,000. This amount is $1,432,289,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the amount provided, 
$2,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This 
is the same as the 2003 contingency reserve level and the 
budget request.
    Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase 
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations 
without competition.
    The Committee is aware that there continues to be a 
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR]. 
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for 
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of 
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to 
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork 
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with 
improvements in the food package, including the addition of 
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which 
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
    Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
must submit for the Secretary's approval a yearly plan that 
contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits 
under the Nutrition Assistance Program [NAP] for Puerto Rico 
are provided during the following fiscal year. While the 
Committee notes the program flexibility normally afforded to 
Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages the Secretary not to 
approve any NAP plan that does not require at least 75 percent 
of NAP funds to be spent on food at certain stores with point-
of-sales devices.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $163,431,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................     166,072,000
Committee recommendation................................     145,740,000

\1\ Includes $1,074,000 previously funded through the Food Donations 
Program.

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses 
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 
through The Emergency Food Assistance 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 2004 approximately 68,000 women, infants, 
and young children and 342,000 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 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for 
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the 
program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people 
through prepared meals served on site and through the 
distribution of commodities to low-income households for home 
consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State 
agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 
State agencies make the commodities available to local 
organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food 
banks, and community action agencies, for their use in 
providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    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 2002, $307,100,000 worth of commodities were 
distributed to assist needy individuals. Donations will 
continue in fiscal year 2003. Precise levels depend upon the 
availability of surplus commodities and requirements regarding 
displacement. In fiscal year 2003, $60,000,000 will be used to 
help State and local authorities with the storage and 
distribution costs of providing surplus commodities to needy 
individuals. Although the $60,000,000 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 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
reauthorizes funding to support the storage and distribution of 
commodities through fiscal year 2007, and increases the amount 
authorized to be appropriated from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. 
The law permits State and local agencies to use these funds to 
pay costs associated with the storage and distribution of USDA 
commodities and commodities secured from other sources. At the 
request of the State, these funds can be used by USDA to 
purchase additional commodities. The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 also reauthorizes funding for the 
purchase of TEFAP commodities and increases the amount of funds 
available from $100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the 
commodities purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities 
obtained under agriculture support programs are donated to 
States for distribution through TEFAP.
    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 Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $145,740,000. This amount is 
$17,691,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee does not agree with the President's proposal 
to fund the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program under the 
Commodity Assistant Program account. The Committee provides 
$25,000,000 in funding for this purpose under the Special 
Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] 
account.
    The Committee continues to encourage the Department to 
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among 
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities 
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity 
allocations through each of the programs funded under this 
account.
    The Committee is aware that since 1997, commodities 
provided through TEFAP have increased by approximately 400 
percent, with most of the increase coming through surplus or 
bonus commodities purchased by USDA. The Committee is further 
aware that during difficult economic times, the number of 
Americans in need of assistance through State and local food 
banks increases. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 provides $140,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be 
purchased with food stamp funds. The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the 
Committee provides the Secretary authority to transfer up to an 
additional $10,000,000 from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
    The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food 
products are made available by hunters and other game 
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State 
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of 
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration 
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide 
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP 
administrative funds for this purpose.
    The Committee provides $94,991,000 for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $18,765,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of this amount, no less 
than $22,841,000 shall be available for administrative funding.
    The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide 
fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 419,000 low-income 
senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal 
year 2003. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is 
available for the program in fiscal year 2004 through the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

                        FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $1,074,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ The fiscal year 2004 budget recommends transferring funds from this 
account to the Commodity Assistance Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    Funding for Pacific Island Assistance is provided under the 
Commodity Assistance Program account, as requested in the 
President's budget.

                   nutrition programs administration

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $135,672,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     144,849,000
Committee recommendation................................     138,304,000

    The Nutrition Programs 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 Pacific Island Assistance.
    The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is 
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition 
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished 
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made 
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out 
regular staff support functions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $138,304,000. This amount is 
$2,632,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This 
amount does not include $32,000 for FECA administrative 
charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA 
Agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related 
to food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic 
Research Service has particular capacities related to economics 
analysis and modeling. The food and Nutrition Service has 
longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food 
assistance programs. Given their respective capacities and 
areas of expertise, research dollars at the Department of 
Agriculture are provided to both ERS and FNS. The Committee 
provides $3,195,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level, 
for studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs 
Administration account.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Transfers
                              Appropriations    from loan       Total
                                                accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003........        129,103         4,229       133,332
Budget estimate, 2004.......        140,798         4,393       145,191
Committee recommendation....        131,648         4,365       136,013
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 63 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 80 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. 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.
    A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a 
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or 
export of tobacco or tobacco products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $131,648,000. This amount is 
$2,545,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This 
amount does not include $16,000 for FECA administrative 
charges, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 
2003 level.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 budget request 
level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide 
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
    The Committee continues to include language in a general 
provision 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], 
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure 
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
    The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service 
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska 
Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and 
other seafood to overseas markets.
    To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve 
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural 
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding 
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the 
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology. 
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for 
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested 
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign 
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the 
United States fails to participate in such discussions, those 
attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S. 
producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine 
confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while 
reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The 
Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the 
needs of our trading partners so that officials from the 
Department of Agriculture may, when requested, educate foreign 
regulators on the safety of the technology and the thoroughness 
of the U.S. regulatory process.
    In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary 
to work with representatives of the dairy industry and 
appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the 
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian 
assistance programs.
    The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus 
non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price 
support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing 
storage costs associated with this buildup and encourages the 
agency to utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce 
this growing surplus.
    The Committee encourages FAS to support the Central Asia/
Krasnodar, Turkey and China Initiative project for the 
development of biotechnological and conservation activities and 
to develop services modeled on the Cooperative Extension 
Service. The Committee also recommends FAS support for the 
``Good Neighbor Partnership--Azores'' initiative by the Azores 
Collaborative Research and Education Group [ACREG].

                 PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Administrative
                                                                Credit level      Loan subsidy       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003........................................          153,663           115,416            2,045
Budget estimate, 2004.......................................          131,670           103,887            4,041
Committee recommendation....................................          131,670           103,887            2,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2004 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 total 
appropriations of $106,021,000. This amount is $11,440,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This appropriation 
will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of 
$131,670,000 for fiscal year 2004, $21,993,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2003 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan 
subsidy amounts, and administrative expenses are reflected in 
the table above, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget 
request levels.

        PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $24,995,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,000,000

    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the 
Committee recommends $28,000,000. This amount is $3,005,000 
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................  $1,440,575,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   1,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,192,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of 
$369,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.


    The Committee recognizes the important mission of the 
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; 
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development; 
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets 
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage 
the development of private enterprise and democratic 
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly 
supports the continued efficient operation of this important 
program.
    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

    For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of 
$1,192,000,000. This amount is $248,575,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
    The Committee expects the administration to allocate no 
less than 1,875,000 metric tons of the commodities provided 
under Title II to non-emergency programs. Unanticipated 
emergency needs, such as the famine in southern Africa, should 
be met primarily through the section 416b program, the Bill 
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, or emergency appropriations.
    The Committee directs the administration not to place 
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title 
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries, 
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed 
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid 
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program 
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not 
on the level of monetization.
    The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal 
year 2004 to continue the fiscal year 2003 level of funding 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.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
increased the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency 
assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this 
level to help address the underlying causes of hunger in the 
world. The Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480 
Title II will be used for its intended purpose and not for ad 
hoc emergency assistance. In the event of additional emergency 
needs, the Committee reminds the Department of the availability 
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
    As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new 
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7 
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds 
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of 
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This 
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a 
transfer be deemed appropriate.

  McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
                             Program Grants

Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     $50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

    Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food 
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support 
education, child development, and food security for some of the 
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of 
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical 
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition 
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are 
committed to universal education. Commodities made available 
for donation through agreements with private voluntary 
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, 
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or 
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding 
and nutrition projects. For fiscal year 2003, $100,000,000 from 
the Commodity Credit Corporation was used to fund this program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee provides $25,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The Committee 
is aware that opportunities may exist to use Food for Progress 
resources in certain countries through arrangements consistent 
with the objectives of the McGovern-Dole Program. The Secretary 
is encouraged to investigate the possible use of Food for 
Progress resources to supplement funds made available by this 
Act to carry out activities consistent with the McGovern-Dole 
Program and report to the Committee on the specific countries 
for which this opportunity may exist and the extent to which 
such use is a prudent allocation of resources.

       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 \1\      subsidy \1\        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.........................................        4,225,000          293,927            4,032
Budget estimate, 2004........................................        4,155,000          297,000            4,312
Committee recommendation.....................................        4,155,000          297,000            4,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. Other credit activities may also be financed under 
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit 
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers 
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters 
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S. 
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing 
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 Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending 
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] reaffirmed the 
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective 
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor 
products for continued safety after they are in use. In 
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the 
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of 
all regulated products, including food, and improving the 
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
    The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food 
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic 
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and 
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new 
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial 
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in 
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a 
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the 
safest in the world.
    The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate 
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is 
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal 
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are 
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of 
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and 
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention 
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
    The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood 
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, 
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program 
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and 
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and 
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot 
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events 
associated with vaccine immunization.
    The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces 
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. 
Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers 
and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, 
microwave ovens, and video display terminals.
    FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in 
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, 
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the 
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions 
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The 
research is designed to define and understand the biological 
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and 
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, 
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Mammography
                                                                                    Prescription    Medical     clinics      Export and
                                                                     Appropriation    drug user     device     inspection  certification       Total
                                                                                        fees       user fees      fees          fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003...............................................      1,373,131      222,900       25,125       16,112         6,378        1,643,646
Budget estimate, 2004..............................................      1,394,617      249,825       29,190       16,576         6,649        1,696,857
Committee recommendation...........................................      1,384,213      249,825       29,190       16,576         6,649        1,686,453
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       committee recommendations

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,384,213,000. This amount is $11,082,000 
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The Committee 
also recommends $249,825,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act 
user fee collections, $29,190,000 in Medical Device User Fee 
and Modernization Act user fee collections, $16,576,000 in 
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and 
$6,649,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the 
President's budget. These amounts are $26,925,000, $4,065,000, 
$464,000, and $271,000 more than the 2003 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 following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget 
request levels:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2003 enacted    2004 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
    Foods.......................................................         410,452         413,208         412,020
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]....         148,069         144,351         144,382
        Field activities........................................         262,383         268,857         267,638
                                                                 ===============================================
    Human drugs.................................................         276,120         303,802         293,595
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]..........         176,669         206,979         197,536
        Orphan product grants...................................          13,270          13,270          13,270
        Field activities........................................          86,181          83,553          82,789
                                                                 ===============================================
    Biologics...................................................         145,820         124,494         123,539
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].....         117,584          97,854          97,084
        Field activities........................................          28,236          26,640          26,455
                                                                 ===============================================
    Animal drugs................................................          88,349          85,224          84,646
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]....................          57,470          55,657          55,281
        Field activities........................................          30,879          29,567          29,365
                                                                 ===============================================
    Medical and radiological devices............................         193,359         184,543         191,878
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].......         140,432         133,815         141,496
        Field activities........................................          52,927          50,728          50,382
                                                                 ===============================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]...........          40,403          40,151          39,887
                                                                 ===============================================
Other activities................................................          84,134          91,821          90,154
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Office of the Commissioner..................................          13,080          29,422          29,075
    Office of Management and Systems............................          40,655          42,505          41,323
    Office of Senior Associate Commissioner.....................           8,200  ..............  ..............
    Office of External Relations................................  ..............           7,364           7,323
    Office of International and Constituent Relations...........           7,362  ..............  ..............
    Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning.................           8,044           5,567           5,514
    Central services............................................           6,793           6,963           6,919
                                                                 ===============================================
Rent and related activities.....................................          36,261          42,498          40,261
                                                                 ===============================================
Rental payments to GSA..........................................          98,233         108,876         108,233
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority....       1,373,131       1,394,617       1,384,213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following increases in budget 
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $20,500,000 
for counterterrorism activities related to food safety; 
$2,400,000 for activities related to patient safety; 
$10,000,000 for increased medical device review; $600,000 to 
improve FDA's over-the-counter [OTC] drug program; $8,000,000 
to reduce review times and increase the number of generic drugs 
on the market; $3,000,000 for activities related to the Best 
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act; $4,000,000 to continue the 
relocation of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; and 
$1,374,000 to continue implementation of the Unified Financial 
Management System. The Committee also recommends a decrease in 
budget authority requested in the budget of $57,575,000 
associated with management savings and information technology 
consolidation efforts.
    The Committee understands that FDA and the Department of 
Health and Human Services [DHHS] are making progress in 
migrating from FDA's legacy systems and preparing for the 
implementation of the DHHS Unified Financial Management System. 
The Committee expects the same funding ratios for the two 
respective projects as was established in fiscal year 2003 to 
continue progress.
    Other Activities Reorganization.--The Committee has 
provided funding consistent with the President's request for a 
reorganization within the ``Other Activities'' line item. 
Specifically, the Office of the Senior Associate Commissioner 
has been streamlined and re-titled the Office of External 
Relations [OER]. The OER will consist of the current Advisory 
Committee Oversight and Management Staff as well as the Office 
of Executive Secretariat, Office of Public Affairs, Office of 
the Ombudsman, and Office of Special Health Issues. Further, 
the funding and responsibilities of the Office of International 
and Constituent Relations will be divided between the Office of 
the Commissioner and the OER.
    Rent Payments.--The Committee recommends $108,233,000 for 
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA]. This is $10,000,000 more than the 2003 level. The 
Committee has included $4,000,000 for relocation expenses 
related to the move of the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research to the consolidated White Oak campus. It is expected 
that the remaining $2,000,000 necessary for this phase of the 
move will be provided from carryover funds available in the 
Prescription Drug User Fee account.
    Within the total funding available, at least $2,534,000 is 
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
    Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides $2,000,000, an increase of $250,000 over the 
fiscal year 2003 level, for the FDA to continue its contract 
with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory 
to operate the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which 
conducts evaluation and development of rapid screening 
methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to 
provide technology deployment modeling and data analysis for 
food safety and product safety in order to facilitate FDA's 
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product 
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
    The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for 
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC] 
and its work in food safety technology verification and 
education at no less than the fiscal year 2003 level.
    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 sufficient funding for the National Center to continue 
the important work done there.
    In addition, the funding provided for food safety will 
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the 
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew 
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food 
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current 
contract became effective on June 12, 2003. It will fund at 
least 292 inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP 
inspections and 20 other food inspections, at a cost of 
approximately $269,000. The establishments to be inspected will 
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
    Seafood Safety.--General Accounting Office [GAO] reports on 
the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of the FDA 
efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including 
shellfish. GAO found FDA's seafood inspection system provides 
consumers with inadequate protection for seafood-related 
foodborne illness. The Committee urges FDA to promote the 
development of new food safety technologies such as 
irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or 
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of 
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe 
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
    The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate 
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the 
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety 
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. 
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2003 
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to 
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be 
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for 
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
    The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective 
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption 
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned 
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's [ISSC] 
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to 
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may 
not effectively address public health concerns.
    The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's 
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with 
HACCP. However, the Committee is aware that special or unique 
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors. 
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the 
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and 
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries, 
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other 
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to 
take into account both the history and the industry's practical 
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy 
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
    The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported 
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the 
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit 
was recently filed against national grocery chains alleging 
they do not adequately label the fish which are dyed. The 
Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to continue 
to monitor information concerning the safety of the use of such 
additives and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce 
the clear and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes 
to consumers on consumer packaging.
    Chloramphenicol.--The Committee is aware that FDA currently 
rejects all shrimp imports that test positive for 
chloramphenicol, an antibiotic used in aquaculture that may 
cause severe effects in humans. However, FDA currently inspects 
approximately 2 percent of all seafood imports. The Committee 
believes that this number is too low, and encourages the FDA to 
use any available funding to increase the frequency of 
inspections for imported seafood.
    Mercury.--New reports highlight the need to increase 
Federal attention to mercury levels in seafood and improve 
Federal advisories on potential mercury exposure through fish 
consumption. The Committee strongly encourages FDA to restart 
its fish monitoring program to track levels of mercury in 
frequently consumed seafood or species with potentially high 
mercury levels, as well as revise its mercury advisory to be 
consistent with recommendations from the National Academy of 
Sciences and the FDA Food Advisory Committee.
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The 
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial 
Resistance Monitoring Service [NARMS] and its collaborative 
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee 
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas 
of Government to result in the most unbiased presentation of 
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health.
    Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research is $13,270,000 for the Orphan Products 
Grants Program. This is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
    Dietary Supplements.--The Committee believes that the 
potential for dietary supplements to have positive health 
benefits has been realized in many cases. However, it is 
essential that FDA continue its efforts to ensure their safety, 
and to fully enforce the prohibition of false, misleading or 
unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary supplements 
implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act 
[DSHEA] of 1994. The budget request includes total funding of 
approximately $4,700,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting 
System [CAERS], of which approximately $1,500,000 is for 
dietary supplements. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,000,000 for CAERS over the budget request, bringing total 
funding to $5,700,000. These funds are to be used to ensure 
prompt identification of and response to adverse health events 
related to foods including dietary supplements. The Committee 
notes that the budget request assumes additional reductions to 
the fiscal year 2003 level of $6,600,000 resulting from 
information technology consolidation savings. The Committee 
believes that the CAERS program should be considered a high 
priority and any savings from IT consolidation should not 
result in any diminution of the program. Therefore, prior to 
any modifications to this system, the Committee instructs FDA 
to report on proposed consolidation efforts with detailed 
information on the impact to the system.
    FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze 
specific components in ingredients, including botanical 
ingredients, is an essential component of research and 
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and 
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee expects the 
same level of review of botanicals in dietary supplements to 
continue in fiscal year 2004. This work is being carried out by 
FDA in collaboration with the National Center for Natural 
Products Research, Oxford, MS.
    Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA 
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA 
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on 
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing 
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process 
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology 
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for 
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee 
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency 
representatives may perform this service.
    Blood Product Safety.--The Committee remains concerned FDA 
has not moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to 
require manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and 
prompt patient notification of adverse events. The Committee 
continues to urge FDA to complete implementation of this 
important blood product safety mechanism and requests quarterly 
reports on its progress.
    Blood Safety.--The Committee is aware that multiple 
standards currently exist regarding the collection of recovered 
and source plasma from blood, and encourages FDA to work with 
all stakeholders to ensure the equivalence of these standards 
in safeguarding the Nation's blood supply.
    Generic Drugs.--Prompt approval of generic drug 
applications is imperative to making generic drugs available at 
the earliest possible date to American consumers. Therefore, 
the Committee is providing $52,845,000 for the generic drugs 
program, an increase of $8,000,000. The Committee expects that 
this increase will result in more than 85 percent of generic 
drug applications being reviewed within 6 months of submission.
    FDA Reclassification of Medical Gloves.--The Committee 
remains concerned about the prevalence of natural rubber latex 
allergy, particularly among heath care workers and patients, 
even though a small percentage of the general population is 
sensitive to latex protein. The Committee recognizes that 
proper glove choices are important, as health care workers and 
their patients will encounter risks of infection and/or disease 
if barrier protection against viral transmission is inadequate.
    The Committee understands that latex gloves are 
acknowledged for their barrier effectiveness. The Committee is 
also aware that as a result of technological advances in 
manufacturing, the residual protein in some latex gloves has 
been largely removed, reducing the potential for allergic 
sensitisation.
    Recognizing the need for the public, and particularly 
health care workers, to be provided with the necessary 
information on proper glove choices, the Committee directs that 
the FDA finalize the 1999 proposed regulation that would 
reclassify all surgeon's and patient examination gloves as 
Class II Medical Devices. This would enable medical gloves that 
provide effective barrier protection with low or zero allergen 
risk to be better appreciated and identified.
    Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the 
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of 
milk protein concentrate. A General Accounting Office 
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein 
concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA's 
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it 
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein 
concentrate in standardized cheese.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it 
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are 
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee 
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health 
at FDA is funded at not less than $3,075,000 for program 
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure 
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to 
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if 
necessary.
    Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is aware 
that for the last several years, premarket approval 
applications for breakthrough medical technologies have taken 
more than a year, despite the 180-day statutory maximum for 
approval or denial of such applications. In fact, it is the 
Committee's understanding that the average length of time for 
medical device premarket reviews is still over 400 days.
    In an effort to address this unacceptable level of service, 
the medical device industry, the executive branch, and Congress 
worked together to develop the Medical Device User Fee and 
Modernization Act [MDUFMA] which was signed into law on October 
26, 2002. Under the provisions of this Act, the medical device 
industry would pay a fee upon application for approval of a 
medical device, the FDA would meet certain statutory 
performance goals for timely review of these applications, and 
additional appropriations would be provided.
    Although this Committee was not consulted during the 
development of this Act, a partial installment of $4,000,000 
was provided in fiscal year 2003 in order to begin 
implementation of the law. It was the Committee's expectation 
that the necessary subsequent funding would be included as part 
of the fiscal year 2004 request. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 
2004 budget request does not even come close to the second-year 
amount necessary to meet the requirements of the law.
    The Committee is extremely disappointed by this lack of 
commitment to MDUFMA, and strongly encourages the FDA to 
include the necessary appropriation in the fiscal year 2005 
budget request. The Committee believes the intent of MDUFMA is 
extremely worthy, and that lifesaving medical devices should be 
approved as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Committee 
has provided an increase of $10,000,000 for this program, and 
hopes to see increased support for MDUFMA in the future in 
order to prevent the termination of this worthwhile law.
    Further, the Committee notes a requirement contained in the 
Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional 
Record on pages S356-S410, that the FDA provide a report within 
90 days of the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act on the obligation of the $4,000,000 provided 
for MDUFMA in fiscal year 2003, to include the number of 
employees to be hired, a description of their duties, and the 
effect those funds will have on premarket review times for 
medical devices. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 
Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 20, 2003. To 
date, this report has not yet been received. The Committee 
expects agency compliance with congressional directives, and 
urges in the strongest possible terms that this report be 
received no later than 1 week following the filing of this 
report.
    Implanted Medical Devices.--The Committee acknowledges 
current FDA requlations designed to improve post-market 
surveillance for medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA 
to devote the necessary resources to require registries and 
monitor well-designed long-term safety studies for implanted 
devices, including but not limited to jaw implants. As the 
aging U.S. population becomes more dependent on implanted 
devices, the Committee believes it is essential that the FDA 
allocate adequate resources to patient safety activities 
related to these devices, such as registries, post-market 
surveillance, and long-term phase IV trials.
    Tissue Safety.--Although FDA has placed proposed rules 
regarding donor suitability and good manufacturing practices 
related to tissue safety in the Unified Agenda as an ``other 
significant'' priority, the Committee remains concerned that 
these rules have not yet been finalized. In the fiscal year 
2003 Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 
Congressional Record, pages S356-S410, FDA was directed to 
finalize these rules ``within 9 months of the enactment of this 
Act.'' The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act was 
signed into law on February 20, 2003. Therefore, the Committee 
expects FDA to finalize these proposed rules by November 20, 
2003.
    Chlorofluorocarbon Propelled Medicines.--The Committee is 
pleased that the FDA has published a rule articulating a 
transition strategy for removing chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] 
propelled medicines from the U.S. market. The Committee is 
aware that several well recognized patient and physician 
organizations which represent those who suffer from asthma and 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease submitted a Citizen 
Petition to the FDA requesting that it take measures to remove 
albuterol from the list of essential uses for CRCs. The 
Committee encourages the FDA to respond to the petition request 
in a timely manner and, if appropriate, expeditiously implement 
a transition strategy as alternative non-CFC products enter the 
U.S. market.
    Prescription Drug Monograph System.--The Committee is aware 
of interest in the establishment of a monograph system for 
prescription drug products that have been marketed to a 
material extent and for a material time without apparent safety 
or efficacy problems and do not have premarket approval. FDA 
currently regards these products as ``DESI'' (Drug Efficacy 
Study Implementation) or ``DESI-II'' products for compliance 
purposes. Such a monograph system would be modeled after the 
Agency's system for over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that was 
established 30 years ago for products that were similarly 
generally recognized as safe and effective due to their long 
history of safe and effective marketing. The Committee is 
sympathetic to those who advocate such a monograph system, but 
recognizes that review of a proposal to establish such a system 
falls under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee. However, in an effort to start the 
dialogue, the Committee directs FDA to prepare a report for the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding the feasibility and 
cost of such a new monograph system for prescription drug 
products as described above. In the meantime, the Committee 
believes that enforcement resources regarding pharmaceutical 
products should be dedicated to activities that are most likely 
to improve the public health.
    Color Certification Fees.--The Committee is aware that the 
color certification function, performed by FDA and paid for by 
user fees from the certified color industry, moved into new 
temporary space in October 2002, and is planning on moving into 
permanent space in the fall of 2004. Increased rent and 
security costs for the temporary space, which is much larger 
than necessary and significantly more expensive, are being paid 
by the color certification user fees. The Committee is aware 
that color certification user fee assessments have not 
increased since 1993, and that the industry received a rebate 
of $1,000,000 from FDA in fiscal year 2002. However, the 
Committee is concerned that the industry must pay for space and 
security costs above necessary levels. The Committee is also 
concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with the 
industry as this office move was contemplated. The Committee 
directs FDA to provide a report on the steps that will be taken 
to ensure that there will not be any future excessive 
fluctuations in the cost of this program.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $7,948,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      11,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,948,000

    In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are 
in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other 
locations around the country, including regular field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, 
modifications, improvements and construction 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 $7,948,000. This amount is 
the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $85,426,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      88,435,000
Committee recommendation................................      90,435,000
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was 
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
    The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal 
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, 
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage 
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise 
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading 
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure 
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
    The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the 
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by 
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and 
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade 
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the 
markets to better 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 $90,435,000. This amount is $5,009,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 2003........................................     $38,400,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................      40,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,900,000

\1\ Includes an increase of $2,500,000 pursuant to the May 9, 2003, 
budget amendment.

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $40,900,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. This amount is $2,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 
limitation.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The majority of the general provisions are essentially the 
same as those included in the fiscal year 2003 and previous 
years' appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee 
recommends the following provisions:
    Section 744 to limit the use of funds under section 2301 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 745 to limit use of funds under section 2502 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 746 to limit the use of funds under section 2503 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 747 to carry out section 6028 of Public Law 107-
171.
    Section 748 to limit the use of funds under section 6029 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 749 to limit the use of funds under section 6193 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 750 to limit the use of funds under section 9006 of 
Public Law 107-171.
    Section 751 to authorize the payment of costs association 
with the preparation of discrimination complaints.
    Section 752 to set the maximum level for single family 
housing assistance in high cost remote areas of Alaska.
    Section 753 to rescind any unobligated balances in the 
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Revolving Fund.
    Section 754 to provide funds to the Denali Commission.
    Section 755 to provide community eligibility for rural 
housing programs.
    Section 756 to provide community eligibility for the Rural 
Community Advancement Program.
    Section 757 regarding loan or grant programs.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2004, 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, 2004, 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 2004 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 2004 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 program 
which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2004:
    Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003, 
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original 
bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original 
bill making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an 
original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing, and related programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004; each subject to amendment and each 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

 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.
    With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the 
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these 
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                            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 \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
 Budget Resolution for 2004: Subcommittee on
 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
 Administration, and Related Agencies:
    Discretionary.....................................         17,005        17,005         17,891    \1\ 17,632
    Mandatory.........................................         55,536        60,488         39,472    \1\ 39,142
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2004..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \2\ 48,164
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        5,599
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        1,017
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          644
    2008 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............          645
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA        22,381             NA        17,673
 for  2004............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2004
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
                                                                                                                                  -)
             Item                     2003              Budget        House allowance      Committee    -----------------------------------------------------
                                  appropriation   estimate        deg.         recommendation         2003              Budget            House
                                                                                                           appropriation   estimate  allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

  Production, Processing, and
           Marketing

Office of the Secretary.......            3,368             10,068            10,046            +6,678               -22

Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist...........            8,510             12,264             8,707              +197            -3,557
    National Appeals Division.           13,670             14,242            13,997              +327              -245
    Office of Budget and                  7,270              7,980             7,544              +274              -436
     Program Analysis.........
    Homeland Security staff...  ................             1,479               910              +910              -569
    Office of the Chief                  14,993             31,334            15,710              +717           -15,624
     Information Officer......
        Common computing                132,289            177,714           119,289           -13,000           -58,425
         environment..........
    Office of the Chief                   5,496              7,902             5,496   ................           -2,406
     Financial Officer........
    Working capital fund......           11,922   .................  ................          -11,922   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive                  194,150            252,915           171,653           -22,497           -81,262
       Operations.............

Office of the Assistant                     397                808               794              +397               -14
 Secretary for Civil Rights...
Office of Civil Rights........  ................  .................           15,445           +15,445           +15,445
Office of the Assistant                     656                793               673               +17              -120
 Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture buildings and              (186,878)          (199,332)         (188,022)          (+1,144)         (-11,310)
 facilities and rental
 payments.....................
    Payments to GSA...........          120,795            123,910           123,910            +3,115   ................
    Building operations and              32,327             41,445            32,559              +232            -8,886
     maintenance..............
    Repairs, renovations, and            33,756             33,977            31,553            -2,203            -2,424
     construction.............
Hazardous materials management           15,583             15,713            15,611               +28              -102
Departmental administration...           37,628             45,128            23,031           -14,597           -22,097
Office of the Assistant                   3,781              4,186             3,825               +44              -361
 Secretary for Congressional
 Relations....................
Office of Communications......            9,031             10,084             9,228              +197              -856
Office of the Inspector                  73,416             81,895            75,781            +2,365            -6,114
 General......................
Office of the General Counsel.           34,700             37,328            35,343              +643            -1,985
Office of the Under Secretary               580                792               596               +16              -196
 for Research, Education and
 Economics....................
Economic Research Service.....           68,674             76,657            69,902            +1,228            -6,755
National Agricultural                   138,448            136,182           128,922            -9,526            -7,260
 Statistics Service...........
    Census of Agriculture.....          (41,274)           (25,279)          (25,279)         (-15,995)  ................

Agricultural Research Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....        1,036,779            987,303         1,045,533            +8,754           +58,230
    Buildings and facilities..          118,703             24,000            46,000           -72,703           +22,000
        Supplemental                    110,000   .................  ................         -110,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 108-11)..
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Agricultural         1,265,482          1,011,303         1,091,533          -173,949           +80,230
           Research Service...

Cooperative State Research,
 Education, and Extension
 Service:
    Research and education              616,792            514,228           617,575              +783          +103,347
     activities...............
    Native American                      (7,054)            (9,000)           (9,000)          (+1,946)  ................
     Institutions Endowment
     Fund.....................
    Extension activities......          450,520            422,268           450,084              -436           +27,816
    Integrated activities.....           46,439             62,865            46,711              +272           -16,154
    Outreach for socially                 3,470              4,003             3,470   ................             -533
     disadvantaged farmers....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State        1,117,221          1,003,364         1,117,840              +619          +114,476
       Research, Education,
       and Extension Service..

Office of the Under Secretary               721                791               736               +15               -55
 for Marketing and Regulatory
 Programs.....................

Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....          682,758            694,897           705,552           +22,794           +10,655
    Buildings and facilities..            9,924              4,996             4,996            -4,928   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant           692,682            699,893           710,548           +17,866           +10,655
       Health Inspection
       Service................

Agricultural Marketing
 Service:
    Marketing Services........           75,210             75,071            75,263               +53              +192
        Standardization user             (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
         fees.................
    (Limitation on                      (61,619)           (62,577)          (62,577)            (+958)  ................
     administrative expenses,
     from fees collected).....
    Funds for strengthening              14,910             15,392            15,392              +482   ................
     markets, income, and
     supply (transfer from
     section 32)..............
    Payments to states and                1,338              1,347             3,338            +2,000            +1,991
     possessions..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural                91,458             91,810            93,993            +2,535            +2,183
       Marketing Service......

Grain Inspection, Packers and
 Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses.....           39,690             41,688            35,638            -4,052            -6,050
    Limitation on inspection            (42,463)           (42,463)          (42,463)  ................  ................
     and weighing services....
Office of the Under Secretary               595                792               611               +16              -181
 for Food Safety..............
Food Safety and Inspection              754,821            797,149           783,761           +28,940           -13,388
 Service......................
    Lab accreditation fees \1\           (1,000)            (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Production,              4,729,960          4,518,671         4,583,532          -146,428           +64,861
       Processing, and
       Marketing..............
                               =========================================================================================================================
   Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary               614                916               635               +21              -281
 for Farm and Foreign
 Agricultural Services........

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses.....          970,389          1,016,836           988,768           +18,379           -28,068

    (Transfer from export                  (829)              (985)             (846)             (+17)            (-139)
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law            (1,019)            (2,975)           (1,075)             (+56)          (-1,900)
     480).....................
    (Transfer from ACIF)......         (277,361)          (290,136)         (283,020)          (+5,659)          (-7,116)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, transfers from         (279,209)          (294,096)         (284,941)          (+5,732)          (-9,155)
       program accounts.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and            (1,249,598)        (1,310,932)       (1,273,709)         (+24,111)         (-37,223)
       expenses...............

    State mediation grants....            3,974              4,000             3,974   ................              -26
    Dairy indemnity program...              100                100               100   ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service            974,463          1,020,936           992,842           +18,379           -28,094
       Agency.................

    Agricultural Credit
     Insurance Fund Program
     Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........         (129,155)          (140,149)         (129,158)              (+3)         (-10,991)
                Guaranteed....         (993,500)        (1,000,000)         (950,000)         (-43,500)         (-50,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (1,122,655)        (1,140,149)       (1,079,158)         (-43,497)         (-60,991)
            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........         (601,068)          (650,000)         (601,068)  ................         (-48,932)
                Unsubsidized         (1,688,950)        (1,400,000)       (1,200,000)        (-488,950)        (-200,000)
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized             (397,400)          (266,249)         (266,249)        (-131,151)  ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (2,687,418)        (2,316,249)       (2,067,317)        (-620,101)        (-248,932)
            Indian tribe land            (1,987)            (2,000)           (2,000)             (+13)  ................
             acquisition loans
            Boll weevil                (100,000)           (60,000)         (100,000)  ................         (+40,000)
             eradication loans
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (3,912,060)        (3,518,398)       (3,248,475)        (-663,585)        (-269,923)
               authorizations.
        Loan subsidies:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........           14,995             30,945            28,518           +13,523            -2,427
                Guaranteed....            7,451              5,400             5,130            -2,321              -270
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....           22,446             36,345            33,648           +11,202            -2,697

            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........          103,744             93,730            86,674           -17,070            -7,056
                Unsubsidized             53,540             46,620            39,960           -13,580            -6,660
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized               46,893             34,000            34,000           -12,893   ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....          204,177            174,350           160,634           -43,543           -13,716

            Indian tribe land               178   .................  ................             -178   ................
             acquisition......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               226,801            210,695           194,282           -32,519           -16,413
               subsidies......

        ACIF expenses:
            Salaries and                277,361            290,136           283,020            +5,659            -7,116
             expense (transfer
             to FSA)..........
            Administrative                7,948              8,000             7,948   ................              -52
             expenses.........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF               285,309            298,136           290,968            +5,659            -7,168
               expenses.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total,                    512,110            508,831           485,250           -26,860           -23,581
               Agricultural
               Credit
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (3,912,060)        (3,518,398)       (3,248,475)        (-663,585)        (-269,923)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
              Total, Farm             1,486,573          1,529,767         1,478,092            -8,481           -51,675
               Service Agency.
                               =========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency........           70,248             78,488            71,422            +1,174            -7,066
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance          1,557,435          1,609,171         1,550,149            -7,286           -59,022
       Programs...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
         Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance                2,886,000          3,368,000         3,368,000          +482,000   ................
 Corporation: Federal crop
 insurance corporation fund...
Commodity Credit Corporation
 Fund:
    Reimbursement for net            16,285,000         17,275,000        17,275,000          +990,000   ................
     realized losses..........
    Hazardous waste management           (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
     (limitation on
     administrative expenses).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Corporations.....       19,171,000         20,643,000        20,643,000        +1,472,000   ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title I,                25,458,395         26,770,842        26,776,681        +1,318,286            +5,839
       Agricultural Programs..
          (By transfer).......         (279,209)          (294,096)         (284,941)          (+5,732)          (-9,155)
          (Loan authorization)       (3,912,060)        (3,518,398)       (3,248,475)        (-663,585)        (-269,923)
          (Limitation on               (109,082)          (110,040)         (110,040)            (+958)  ................
           administrative
           expenses)..........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE II--CONSERVATION
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               740                918               761               +21              -157
 for Natural Resources and
 Environment..................

Natural Resources Conservation
 Service:
    Conservation operations...          819,641            703,605           826,635            +6,994          +123,030
    Watershed surveys and                11,124              5,000            10,000            -1,124            +5,000
     planning.................
    Watershed and flood                 109,285             40,000            55,000           -54,285           +15,000
     prevention operations....
    Watershed rehabilitation             29,805             10,000            29,805   ................          +19,805
     program..................
    Resource conservation and            50,668             49,943            51,000              +332            +1,057
     development..............
    Farm bill technical         ................           432,160   ................  ................         -432,160
     assistance...............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources        1,020,523          1,240,708           972,440           -48,083          -268,268
       Conservation Service...
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title II,                1,021,263          1,241,626           973,201           -48,062          -268,425
       Conservation Programs..
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               632                913               651               +19              -262
 for Rural Development........

Rural Development:
    Rural community                     901,837            477,864           769,479          -132,358          +291,615
     advancement program......
        Tree assistance (sec.   ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
         747).................
        (Transfer out)........         (-29,805)  .................         (-30,000)            (-195)         (-30,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                  901,837            477,864           769,479          -132,358          +291,615
           community
           advancement program

    RD expenses:
        Salaries and expenses.          144,789            147,520           140,922            -3,867            -6,598

        (Transfer from RHIF)..         (429,564)          (482,787)         (439,453)          (+9,889)         (-43,334)
        (Transfer from RDLFP).           (4,163)            (4,850)           (4,283)            (+120)            (-567)
        (Transfer from RETLP).          (37,587)           (41,562)          (37,920)            (+333)          (-3,642)
        (Transfer from RTB)...           (3,062)            (3,462)           (3,182)            (+120)            (-280)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Transfers          (474,376)          (532,661)         (484,838)         (+10,462)         (-47,823)
           from program
           accounts...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses..         (619,165)          (680,181)         (625,760)          (+6,595)         (-54,421)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                1,046,626            625,384           910,401          -136,225          +285,017
           Development........
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance
     Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family            (1,037,866)        (1,366,462)       (1,359,417)        (+321,551)          (-7,045)
             (sec. 502).......
                Unsubsidized         (2,845,318)        (2,725,172)       (2,725,172)        (-120,146)  ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (3,883,184)        (4,091,634)       (4,084,589)        (+201,405)          (-7,045)
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair              (34,772)           (35,003)          (35,004)            (+232)              (+1)
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing             (115,053)           (70,830)         (115,052)              (-1)         (+44,222)
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.             (5,013)            (5,046)           (5,045)             (+32)              (-1)
             524).............
            Multi-family                (99,350)          (100,000)         (100,000)            (+650)  ................
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                 (1,988)            (1,500)           (1,500)            (-488)  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family               (10,000)           (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing            (4,979)            (5,000)           (1,623)          (-3,356)          (-3,377)
             land develop.
             (sec. 523).......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (4,154,339)        (4,319,013)       (4,352,813)        (+198,474)         (+33,800)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family               201,035            126,018           126,018           -75,017   ................
             (sec. 502).......
                Unsubsidized             32,388             39,903            39,903            +7,515   ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,             233,423            165,921           165,921           -67,502   ................
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair               10,786              9,612             9,612            -1,174   ................
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing               53,649             30,464            49,484            -4,165           +19,020
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.                 55   .................  ................              -55   ................
             524).............
            Multi-family                  4,471              5,950             5,950            +1,479   ................
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                    928                663               663              -265   ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family       ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing               220                154                50              -170              -104
             land develop.
             (sec. 523).......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               303,532            212,764           231,680           -71,852           +18,916
               subsidies......

        RHIF administrative             429,564            482,787           439,453            +9,889           -43,334
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................

        Rental assistance
         program:
            (Sec. 521)........          715,419            734,100           715,381               -38           -18,719
            (Sec.                         5,862              5,900             5,900               +38   ................
             502(c)(5)(D))....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental             721,281            740,000           721,281   ................          -18,719
               assistance
               program........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rural            1,454,377          1,435,551         1,392,414           -61,963           -43,137
               Housing
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (4,154,339)        (4,319,013)       (4,352,813)        (+198,474)         (+33,800)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help                 34,772             34,000            34,000              -772   ................
     housing grants...........
    Rural housing assistance             42,222             41,500            46,222            +4,000            +4,722
     grants...................
    Farm labor program account           36,071             35,018            33,015            -3,056            -2,003
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and              113,065            110,518           113,237              +172            +2,719
       payments...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Housing            1,567,442          1,546,069         1,505,651           -61,791           -40,418
       Service................
          (Loan authorization)       (4,154,339)        (4,319,013)       (4,352,813)        (+198,474)         (+33,800)
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative
 Service:
    Rural Development Loan
     Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (39,740)           (40,000)          (40,000)            (+260)  ................
        Loan subsidy..........           19,179             17,308            17,308            -1,871   ................
        Administrative                    4,163              4,850             4,283              +120              -567
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                   23,342             22,158            21,591            -1,751              -567
           Development Loan
           Fund...............

    Rural Economic Development
     Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (14,870)           (15,002)          (15,002)            (+132)  ................
        Direct subsidy........            3,176              2,792             2,792              -384   ................
    Rural cooperative                     8,941             11,000             8,967               +26            -2,033
     development grants.......
    Rural empowerment zones              14,870   .................           14,370              -500           +14,370
     and enterprise
     communities grants.......
    Renewable energy program..  ................             3,000            23,000           +23,000           +20,000
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Business-             50,329             38,950            70,720           +20,391           +31,770
       Cooperative Service....
          (Loan authorization)          (54,610)           (55,002)          (55,002)            (+392)  ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and
     Telecommunications Loans
     Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5              (120,316)          (240,000)         (240,000)        (+119,684)  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                 (99,350)          (100,000)       (1,000,000)        (+900,650)        (+900,000)
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Direct, FFB...       (2,599,350)        (1,500,000)       (2,000,000)        (-599,350)        (+500,000)
                Direct,              (1,150,000)          (700,000)         (750,000)        (-400,000)         (+50,000)
                 Treasury rate
                Guaranteed             (100,000)          (100,000)         (100,000)  ................  ................
                 electric.....
                Guaranteed           (1,000,000)  .................       (1,000,000)  ................      (+1,000,000)
                 underwriting.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (5,069,016)        (2,640,000)       (5,090,000)         (+20,984)      (+2,450,000)
                   Electric...

            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5               (74,542)          (145,042)         (145,000)         (+70,458)             (-42)
                 percent......
                Direct,                (298,050)          (250,000)         (250,000)         (-48,050)  ................
                 Treasury rate
                Direct, FFB...         (120,000)          (100,000)         (120,000)  ................         (+20,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,            (492,592)          (495,042)         (515,000)         (+22,408)         (+19,958)
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan        (5,561,608)        (3,135,042)       (5,605,000)         (+43,392)      (+2,469,958)
                   authorizati
                   ons........

        Loan subsidies:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5                 6,870   .................  ................           -6,870   ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                   4,004   .................  ................           -4,004   ................
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Guaranteed                   79                 60                60               -19   ................
                 electric.....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,              10,953                 60                60           -10,893   ................
                   Electric...

            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5                 1,275   .................  ................           -1,275   ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                     149                125               125               -24   ................
                 Treasury rate
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,               1,424                125               125            -1,299   ................
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan            12,377                185               185           -12,192   ................
                   subsidies..

            RETLP                        37,587             41,562            37,920              +333            -3,642
             administrative
             expenses
             (transfer to RD).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rural               49,964             41,747            38,105           -11,859            -3,642
               Electrification
               and
               Telecommunicati
               ons Loans
               Program Account
                  (Loan              (5,561,608)        (3,135,042)       (5,605,000)         (+43,392)      (+2,469,958)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank
     Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..         (173,503)  .................         (173,503)  ................        (+173,503)
        Direct loan subsidy...            2,394   .................  ................           -2,394   ................
        RTB administrative                3,062              3,462             3,182              +120              -280
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                    5,456              3,462             3,182            -2,274              -280
           Telephone Bank
           Program Account....

    High energy costs grants            (29,805)  .................          (30,000)            (+195)         (+30,000)
     (by transfer)............
    Distance learning,
     telemedicine and
     broadband program:
        Loan authorizations:
            Distance learning          (300,000)           (50,000)         (300,000)  ................        (+250,000)
             and telemedicine.
            Broadband           ................          (335,963)         (335,963)        (+335,963)  ................
             telecommunication
             s................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan              (300,000)          (385,963)         (635,963)        (+335,963)        (+250,000)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Distance learning            46,636             25,000            40,000            -6,636           +15,000
             and telemedicine:
             Grants...........
            Broadband
             telecommunication
             s:
                Direct........  ................             9,116             9,116            +9,116   ................
                Grants........            9,935              2,000            10,000               +65            +8,000
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan            56,571             36,116            59,116            +2,545           +23,000
                   subsidies
                   and grants.
                               =========================================================================================================================
                  Total, Rural          111,991             81,325           100,403           -11,588           +19,078
                   Utilities
                   Service....
                      (Loan          (6,035,111)        (3,521,005)       (6,414,466)        (+379,355)      (+2,893,461)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
                  Total, title        2,777,020          2,292,641         2,587,826          -189,194          +295,185
                   III, Rural
                   Economic
                   and
                   Community
                   Development
                   Programs...
                      (By              (504,181)          (532,661)         (514,838)         (+10,657)         (-17,823)
                   transfer)..
                      (Loan         (10,244,060)        (7,895,020)      (10,822,281)        (+578,221)      (+2,927,261)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               595                786               611               +16              -175
 for Food, Nutrition and
 Consumer Services............

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs..        5,830,506          6,718,780         6,718,780          +888,274   ................
        Transfer from section         4,745,663          4,699,661         4,699,661           -46,002   ................
         32...................
        Discretionary spending            3,974   .................  ................           -3,974   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child               10,580,143         11,418,441        11,418,441          +838,298   ................
           nutrition programs.

    Special supplemental              4,696,000          4,769,232         4,639,232           -56,768          -130,000
     nutrition program for
     women, infants, and
     children (WIC)...........
        Contingency fund......         (125,000)           (25,000)  ................        (-125,000)         (-25,000)

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses..............       22,772,692         24,203,176        24,203,176        +1,430,484   ................
        Reserve...............        2,000,000          2,000,000         2,000,000   ................  ................
        Nutrition assistance          1,401,000          1,402,805         1,402,805            +1,805   ................
         for Puerto Rico and
         Samoa................
        The emergency food              140,000            140,000           140,000   ................  ................
         assistance program...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp          26,313,692         27,745,981        27,745,981        +1,432,289   ................
           program............

    Commodity assistance                163,431            166,072           145,740           -17,691           -20,332
     program..................
    Food donations programs:              1,074   .................  ................           -1,074   ................
     Needy family program.....
    Nutrition programs                  135,672            144,849           138,304            +2,632            -6,545
     administration...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and                41,890,012         44,244,575        44,087,698        +2,197,686          -156,877
       Nutrition Service......
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,               41,890,607         44,245,361        44,088,309        +2,197,702          -157,052
       Domestic Food Programs.
                               =========================================================================================================================
  TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
     AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:
    Salaries and expenses,              129,103            140,798           131,648            +2,545            -9,150
     direct appropriation.....
    (Transfer from export                (3,203)            (3,327)           (3,306)            (+103)             (-21)
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law            (1,026)            (1,066)           (1,059)             (+33)              (-7)
     480).....................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and              (133,332)          (145,191)         (136,013)          (+2,681)          (-9,178)
       expenses program level.
                               =========================================================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and
 Grant Accounts:
    Program account:
        Loan authorization,            (153,662)          (131,676)         (131,670)         (-21,992)              (-6)
         direct...............
        Loan subsidies........          115,416            103,887           103,887           -11,529   ................
        Ocean freight                    24,995             28,000            28,000            +3,005   ................
         differential grants..

    Title II--Commodities for
     disposition abroad:
        Program level.........       (1,192,200)        (1,185,000)       (1,192,000)            (-200)          (+7,000)
        Appropriation.........        1,192,200          1,185,000         1,192,000              -200            +7,000
        Supplemental                    369,000   .................  ................         -369,000   ................
         appropriations
         (Public Law 108-11)..

    Salaries and expenses:
        Foreign Agricultural              1,026              1,066             1,059               +33                -7
         Service (transfer to
         FAS).................
        Farm Service Agency               1,019              2,975             1,075               +56            -1,900
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............            2,045              4,041             2,134               +89            -1,907
                               =========================================================================================================================
          Total, Public Law
           480:
              Program level...       (1,192,200)        (1,185,000)       (1,192,000)            (-200)          (+7,000)
              Appropriation...        1,703,656          1,320,928         1,326,021          -377,635            +5,093
                               =========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
 Account (administrative
 expenses):
    Salaries and expenses
     (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager             3,203              3,327             3,306              +103               -21
         (transfer to FAS)....
        Farm Service Agency                 829                985               846               +17              -139
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export               4,032              4,312             4,152              +120              -160
           Loans Program
           Account............
                               =========================================================================================================================
McGovern-Dole international     ................            50,000            25,000           +25,000           -25,000
 food for education and child
 nutrition program grants.....
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title V, Foreign         1,836,791          1,516,038         1,486,821          -349,970           -29,217
       Assistance and Related
       Programs...............
          (By transfer).......           (4,229)            (4,393)           (4,365)            (+136)             (-28)
                               =========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
           SERVICES

 Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct         1,373,131          1,394,617         1,384,213           +11,082           -10,404
 appropriation................
    Prescription Drug User Fee         (222,900)          (249,825)         (249,825)         (+26,925)  ................
     Act......................
    Medical Device User Fee             (25,125)           (29,190)          (29,190)          (+4,065)  ................
     Act......................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       (1,621,156)        (1,673,632)       (1,663,228)         (+42,072)         (-10,404)

    Mammography clinics user            (16,112)           (16,576)          (16,576)            (+464)  ................
     fee (outlay savings).....
    Export and color                     (6,378)            (6,649)           (6,649)            (+271)  ................
     certification............
    Payments to GSA...........         (108,269)          (120,045)         (119,152)         (+10,883)            (-893)

Buildings and facilities......            7,948             11,500             7,948   ................           -3,552
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug            1,381,079          1,406,117         1,392,161           +11,082           -13,956
       Administration.........
                               =========================================================================================================================
     INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading                85,426             88,435            90,435            +5,009            +2,000
 Commission...................
Farm Credit Administration              (38,400)           (40,900)          (40,900)          (+2,500)  ................
 (limitation on administrative
 expenses)....................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related        1,466,505          1,494,552         1,482,596           +16,091           -11,956
       Agencies and Food and
       Drug Administration....
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships............            2,981   .................            2,981   ................           +2,981
National Sheep Industry                     496   .................              499                +3              +499
 Improvement Center revolving
 fund.........................
Child and adult care feeding             21,857   .................  ................          -21,857   ................
 program......................
Public Law 480 Title II.......          248,375   .................  ................         -248,375   ................
Tree assistance (sec. 747)....  ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
Northern Great Plains Regional  ................  .................            3,000            +3,000            +3,000
 Authority....................
Denali Commission.............  ................  .................            2,000            +2,000            +2,000
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VII,                 273,709   .................            8,480          -265,229            +8,480
       General provisions.....
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Grand total:
          New budget                 74,724,290         77,561,060        77,403,914        +2,679,624          -157,146
           (obligational)
           authority..........
              Appropriations..      (74,724,290)       (77,561,060)      (77,403,914)      (+2,679,624)        (-157,146)
          (By transfer).......         (787,619)          (831,150)         (804,144)         (+16,525)         (-27,006)
          (Loan authorization)      (14,309,782)       (11,545,094)      (14,202,426)        (-107,356)      (+2,657,332)
          (Limitation on               (147,482)          (150,940)         (150,940)          (+3,458)  ................
           administrative
           expenses)..........
                               =========================================================================================================================
        RECAPITULATION

Title I--Agricultural programs       25,458,395         26,770,842        26,776,681        +1,318,286            +5,839
    Mandatory.................      (19,186,010)       (20,658,492)      (20,658,492)      (+1,472,482)  ................
    Discretionary.............       (6,272,385)        (6,112,350)       (6,118,189)        (-154,196)          (+5,839)
Title II--Conservation                1,021,263          1,241,626           973,201           -48,062          -268,425
 programs (discretionary).....
Title III--Rural economic and         2,777,020          2,292,641         2,587,826          -189,194          +295,185
 community development
 programs (discretionary).....
Title IV--Domestic food              41,890,607         44,245,361        44,088,309        +2,197,702          -157,052
 programs (discretionary).....
    Mandatory.................      (36,889,861)       (39,164,422)      (39,164,422)      (+2,274,561)  ................
    Discretionary.............       (5,000,746)        (5,080,939)       (4,923,887)         (-76,859)        (-157,052)
Title V--Foreign assistance           1,836,791          1,516,038         1,486,821          -349,970           -29,217
 and related programs
 (discretionary)..............
Title VI--Related agencies and        1,466,505          1,494,552         1,482,596           +16,091           -11,956
 Food and Drug Administration
 (discretionary)..............
Title VII--General provisions           273,709   .................            8,480          -265,229            +8,480
 (discretionary)..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, new budget              74,724,290         77,561,060        77,403,914        +2,679,624          -157,146
       (obligational)
       authority..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.


