```

[House Report 106-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-157

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

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

                                _______
                                

  May 21, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1906]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2000.

                                                        SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    FY 2000 recommendation compared with
                                                                   FY 1999           FY 2000           FY 2000     -------------------------------------
                                                                appropriation       estimates      recommendation        FY 1999
                                                                                                                      appropriation    FY 2000 estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs..............................   $14,481,998,000   $20,174,117,000   $20,055,493,000    +$5,573,495,000      -$118,624,000
Title II--Conservation Programs.............................       793,072,000       866,820,000       800,012,000         +6,940,000        -66,808,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs     2,175,234,000     2,194,349,000     2,135,508,000        -39,726,000        -58,841,000
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs............................    36,067,199,000    41,381,688,000    35,520,668,000       -546,531,000     -5,861,020,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs............     1,196,718,000     1,056,853,000     1,160,191,000        -36,527,000       +103,338,000
Title VI--Related Agencies and FDA..........................     1,046,138,000     1,209,355,000     1,169,700,000       +123,562,000        -39,655,000
Title VII--General Provisions...............................                 0                 0         1,000,000         +1,000,000         +1,000,000
Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277).....................     5,916,655,000  ................  ................     -5,916,655,000  .................
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................  \1\ 61,677,014,0    66,883,182,000    60,842,572,000       -834,442,000  \2\-6,040,610,000
                                                                            00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes supplemental funding provided by H.R. 1141.
\2\ Includes Committee recommendations disapproving requested advance appropriations totaling $5,000,000,000.

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$13,945,754,000, which is $253,754,000 more than the amount 
available in fiscal year 1999 and $529,602,000 less than the 
budget request. These amounts exclude emergency spending. If 
emergency spending from fiscal year 1999 regular and 
supplemental bills is included, the Committee provides 
$13,987,754,000, which is $5,620,901,000 less than the amount 
available in fiscal year 1999 and $530,602,000 less than the 
budget request.

                              Introduction

    The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives 
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture 
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of 
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat 
and poultry supply.
    This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our 
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in 
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure 
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than 
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of 
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for more than 272 million 
Americans and many more people overseas.
    Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest 
priorities. The bill provides funding for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Office of the Chief Economist, the Economic Research Service, 
the Food and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service for food safety related activities.
    The rural development programs funded in this bill provide 
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic 
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental 
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future 
generations.
    In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous 
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly 
complex market in commodity trading.
    To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and 
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more 
difficult as the effort to preserve the budget surplus 
continues. There are very few program increases in this bill. 
Many of the accounts are at current levels of spending or 
decreased from the previous fiscal year.
    In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by 
allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with 
fiscal year 1999. The Committee's recommended program levels 
are based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on 
mandatory programs.

                        constitutional authority

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

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

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

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

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

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

1999 appropriation......................................      $2,836,000
2000 budget estimate....................................       2,942,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,836,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................        -106,000

    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 of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,836,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $106,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Secretary shall report to the Appropriations Committee 
of the House and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate 
biannually during fiscal year 2000 as to whether the prices of 
raw cane and beet sugar are sufficient to prevent forfeitures 
and that the stock/use ratio is sufficient to ensure stable and 
adequate supplies to consumers and refiners, with consideration 
of its impact on growers, producers, processors, and users.
    The Committee has included a general provision which limits 
expenses related to advisory committees, panels, task forces, 
and commissions to not more than $1,800,000. This provision is 
intended to cover the activities of all advisory committees, 
panels, task forces, and commissions including any FACA related 
activities. The only exceptions are for panels used to comply 
with negotiated rulemakings and panels used to evaluate 
competitively awarded grants. The Committee expects the 
Department to participate in the National Drought Policy 
Commission.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Committee included language 
designed to limit the personnel detailed to sub-Cabinet 
offices. It had come to the Committee's attention that, while 
each office had requested and received a specific 
appropriation, in fact, many more personnel and funds were 
being used to support sub-Cabinet offices. Each Under or 
Assistant Secretary office should justify its expenditures and 
staffing on the same basis as agencies must. It is apparent 
that Under and Assistant Secretary offices continue to violate 
the spirit of the individual appropriations for these offices. 
Financial shell games have been devised to deflect salaries of 
agency personnel for the continuation of the same function 
detailees have been performing. The Committee includes language 
again this year which prohibits details for more than 30 days.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to provide a report on 
the status of identifying delinquent farm loan borrowers who 
are also receiving program payments.
    The Committee has included report language under APHIS that 
encourages the Department to continue the use of Commodity 
Credit Corporation funds to combat Citrus Canker in Florida.
    The Committee notes that according to the budget 
explanatory notes the Office of the Secretary's account is 
carrying an unexpended balance of $4.7 million for Service 
Center Implementation Team activities. The Committee encourages 
the Secretary to work with the Chief Information Officer to use 
these existing funds to continue implementation of Service 
Center activities including the common computing environment.
    The Committee notes that the ``management by committee'' 
structure currently in place at the USDA for service center 
implementation, common computing environment, and 
administrative convergence has not worked. The Committee 
encourages the Department to establish a single source of 
accountability for these activities.
    The Committee does not establish a spending cap for these 
activities, but rather directs the USDA to adhere to the 
reprogramming requirements established in this bill.

                          Executive Operations

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

                     Office of the Chief Economist

1999 appropriation....................................    \1\ $5,620,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         6,622,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,620,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,002,000

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

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture, and 
is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and 
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop 
outlook and situation material within the Department.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $5,620,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $1,002,000 
below the budget request.

                       National Appeals Division

1999 appropriation....................................       $11,718,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        12,699,000
Provided in the bill..................................        11,718,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................          -981,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $11,718,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $981,000 below 
the budget request.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

1999 appropriation....................................        $6,120,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         6,583,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,583,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +463,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,583,000, an increase 
of $463,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
the same as the budget request.

                office of the chief information officer

1999 appropriation....................................    \1\ $5,551,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         7,998,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,051,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +500,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,947,000

\1\ Does not include $28.7 million, $9.1 million, and $8.4 million for
  year 2000 computer fixes funded through emergency supplemental funds.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,051,000, an increase 
of $500,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
a decrease of $1,947,000 below the budget request.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

1999 appropriation....................................        $4,283,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         6,288,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,283,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -2,005,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $4,283,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$2,005,000 below the budget request.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

1999 appropriation....................................          $613,000
2000 budget estimate..................................           636,000
Provided in the bill..................................           613,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................           -23,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$613,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $23,000 below the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

1999 appropriation....................................      $137,184,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       166,364,000
Provided in the bill..................................       166,364,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +29,180,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to 
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space 
and for related services.
    The budget estimates for rental payments are based on GSA's 
projection of what it will bill agencies in the budget year. 
The agencies have no influence or control over how GSA sets 
their rates. Rental payments paid by agencies go into a fund to 
be used for other real property management operations, such as 
rental of buildings, repairs and alterations, and acquisition 
of new facilities. The concept behind rental payments is that 
all agencies pay the market value of the space they occupy so 
that GSA will have the funds available to provide, in an 
efficient and coordinated way, for overall Federal space needs. 
However, in practice this concept means that agencies are 
paying prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize 
the inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space 
and to cover the cost of vacant space in GSA's inventory.
    Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the 
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity 
provides departmental staff and support services to operate, 
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since 
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been 
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 
and improving the headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1 
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately 
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately 
8,000 employees. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations of 
the Beltsville Office Facility.
    Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the 
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to 
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, 
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority 
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and 
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To 
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of 
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern 
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic 
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its 
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out 
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which 
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building. During FY 1998, 
the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was 
constructed with funds appropriated to the Department and is 
located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. 
Occupancy by USDA agencies began in 1998 and will be completed 
in fiscal year 1999.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$166,364,000, an increase of $29,180,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Included in this amount is $115,542,000 for rental payments 
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent 
of this appropriation to or from another agency's 
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will 
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor 
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for 
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not 
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account:

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                    1999     2000 budget     Committee
                                  estimate      request   recommendation

Rental Payments...............     $108,057     $115,542       $115,542
Building Operations...........       24,127       24,822         24,822
Strategic Space Plan..........        5,000       26,000         26,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................      137,184      166,364        166,364

                       Hazardous Waste Management

1999 appropriation....................................       $15,700,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        22,700,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,700,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -7,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $15,700,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the 
budget request.

                      Departmental Administration

1999 appropriation....................................       $32,168,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        36,117,000
Provided in the bill..................................        36,117,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................        +3,949,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $36,117,000, an increase of $3,949,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request.

        Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers

1999 appropriation....................................        $3,000,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -7,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

1999 appropriation....................................        $3,668,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         3,805,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,668,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................          -137,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,668,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999 and a decrease of $137,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee includes language allowing the transfer of not less 
than $2,241,000 to agencies funded in this Act to maintain 
personnel at the agency level.

                        Office of Communications

1999 appropriation....................................        $8,138,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         9,300,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,138,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,162,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $8,138,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $1,162,000 below the 
budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

1999 appropriation....................................       $65,128,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        68,246,000
Provided in the bill..................................        65,128,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -3,118,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $65,128,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of 
$3,118,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is aware that the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) stopped conservation technical 
assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on April 
7, 1999 and is concerned about that action. The Committee 
directs the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report to the 
Committee on Appropriations, no later than 30 days after 
enactment of this Act, on the following: a listing of states 
where offices were closed, the amount of time they were closed, 
the roles employees were given in lieu of providing technical 
assistance to CRP lands, and the number, if any, of employees 
laid off or furloughed as a result of this action.
    In addition, the Committee directs the OIG to provide a 
full accounting and analysis of the NRCS/FSA funding mechanisms 
for CRP conservation technical assistance, and a determination 
on whether USDA used all tools necessary to avoid stopping 
conservation technical assistance on CRP lands.
    The Committee is aware that the USDA, the Department of 
Treasury, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement 
on the allocation of funds received through forfeiture 
proceedings. The Committee believes that funds received as a 
result of this agreement should allow the Inspector General's 
Office to pursue law enforcement initiatives and other related 
activities.
    The Committee strongly supports the Department's Operation 
Talon program to locate and apprehend fugitives who are 
illegally receiving food stamps. This initiative has already 
led to the arrest of dangerous fugitives, including many 
individuals being sought for murder, rape, assault, and other 
violent crimes. The Committee urges the Department to expand 
its commitment to Operation Talon and to enlist the assistance 
of state social service agencies in this effort.

                     Office of the General Counsel

1999 appropriation....................................       $29,194,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        32,675,000
Provided in the bill..................................        29,194,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -3,481,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $29,194,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of 
$3,481,000 below the budget request.

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

1999 appropriation....................................          $540,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         2,061,000
Provided in the bill..................................           940,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +400,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,121,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying 
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural 
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical 
information. The Office has oversight and management 
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics 
Service. The Under Secretary serves as chair of the Biobased 
Coordinating Council of the Department which is responsible for 
developing a list of biobased products to be considered for 
environmental preferability.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $940,000, an increase of $400,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$1,121,000 below the budget request. Within the sum provided, 
up to $400,000 is available for activities related to the 
Biobased Coordinating Council, rather than $1,500,000 as 
requested.

                       Economic Research Service

1999 appropriation....................................   \1\ $65,757,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        55,628,000
Provided in the bill..................................        70,266,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................        +4,509,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       +14,638,000

\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $791,000 for Office of Energy from
  ERS to OCE or the transfer of $2 million to FPA in the Food and
  Nutrition Service.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $70,266,000, an increase of $4,509,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase 
of $14,638,000 above the budget request. The Committee has 
provided $17,495,000, an increase of $300,000 above the budget 
request, for studies and evaluations work under the Food and 
Nutrition Service. Included in this total is $11,000,000 for 
food stamp, $3,000,000 for child nutrition, and $3,495,000 for 
WIC studies and evaluations. This work is to be carried out 
within the Food and Consumer Economics Division which conducts 
research and analysis on food programs and food policy issues. 
The Committee expects ERS to consult and work with the staff at 
the Food and Nutrition Service as well as other agencies to 
assure that all studies and evaluations are meeting the needs 
of the Department.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

1999 appropriation....................................      $103,964,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       100,559,000
Provided in the bill..................................       100,559,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................        -3,405,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $100,559,000, a decrease 
of $3,405,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 1999 
and the same as the budget request. Included in this amount is 
$16,490,000 for the Census of Agriculture. The Census of 
Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data every five 
years on all aspects of the agricultural economy.

                     Agricultural Research Service

1999 appropriation....................................  \1\ $785,518,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       836,868,000
Provided in the bill..................................       836,381,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +50,863,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................          -487,000

\1\ Excludes $23,000,000 provided for supplemental drug control research
  and $4.500,000 transferred from the Office of National Drug Control
  Policy provided by P.L. 105-277.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $836,381,000, an increase of $50,863,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and $487,000 below 
the budget request.
    Aflatoxin.--The Committee recognizes the promising research 
which would prevent the formation of aflatoxin in field crops. 
The Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, which serves as a 
liaison committee to USDA in directing aflatoxin research, has 
recommended additional funding be made available to facilitate 
expansion of a project in Arizona to use AF-36 to treat up to 
20,000 acres during the 1999-2000 crop, and EPA has issued the 
necessary permits for that purpose. While the Committee is 
unable to provide additional funding due to budgetary 
constraints, it expects the Secretary to instruct ARS, APHIS 
and other agencies to provide the necessary assistance to 
ensure that the expanded project is completed during this 
fiscal year.
    Agricultural law research.--The National Center for 
Agricultural Law Research and Information is the primary 
contributor of bibliographic agricultural law information to 
the USDA National Agricultural Library. The Committee directs 
the Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in fiscal 
year 2000 for the National Center for Agricultural Law Research 
located at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
    Agricultural Telecommunications.--The Committee recognizes 
the changing nature of technology and the way that it has 
affected the delivery of agricultural research to local 
communities. With fewer agents in the field to communicate the 
latest agricultural information and research to farmers, there 
is an increased demand for advanced technology to bring this 
research to the farms in a timely manner. The Committee 
provides $1 million for development of advanced technology to 
facilitate delivery of research-based information to local 
communities and individuals. This increase is directed to 
American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC).
    Animal Vaccines.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$2,500,000 for a joint research project on advanced animal 
vaccines and diagnostic applications between the University of 
Connecticut and the University of Missouri.
    Animal Waste, Illinois.--The Committee provides $200,000 
for animal waste management and rural and urban interface.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee recognizes the need to 
conduct fish health management research directed at meeting the 
needs of the U.S. aquaculture industry including research on 
improving yields, food quality, disease control, and stress 
tolerance. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research 
Service to continue funding in fiscal year 2000 for research 
activities at the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research 
Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
    Aquaculture research.--The Committee provides $500,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 for the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the 
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for the research of costs 
related to bird predation on farm-raised fish and the 
development of value added products for aquaculture from within 
funds appropriated to Agricultural Research Service.
    Aquaculture Systems.--Within the funds provided to the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee recommends an 
increase of $50,000 for research on developing new aquaculture 
systems focused on rainbow trout at the University of 
Connecticut.
    Biological controls and agricultural research.--The 
Committee provides $1 million for a Center for Biological 
Controls and $1.5 million for Science Center of Excellence at 
Florida A&M University.
    Coffee and cocoa research.--The Committee notes that an 
infestation of tropical fungal and pest diseases have had a 
devastating impact on coffee and cocoa crop production. The 
Committee provides an increase of $3 million for the 
continuation of the disease resistance/alternative crop 
research which was initiated as part of the Central/South 
American Anti-Drug Initiative in the FY 1999 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill.
    Continuing Programs.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of ongoing research projects in addressing 
increasing problems faced by the Nation's food and fiber 
producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2000 at the same funding level 
provided in fiscal year 1999: organics research management; 
genetic characterization of soybean germplasm; development of 
soybean germplasm and production systems for high yield and 
drought prone environments; soybean diseases; wild rice 
research; soil tilth, Ames, IA; emerging plant and animal 
diseases; exotic infectious diseases; livestock management 
systems; food safety, Ames, IA soybean, genetic work and 
ongoing research at Ames, IA aimed at increasing the 
productivity and profitability of soybean production and 
processing; alternative grain-based fish feed project at the 
ARS facility in Aberdeen, ID; areawide pest management research 
to develop compounds to replace hazardous chemicals and to 
expand IPM and area wide pest management practices to meet the 
requirements resulting from the Food Quality Protection Act 
(FQPA); poult enteritis mortality syndrome; work on the 
biotechnology research and development corporation's research; 
biological control of Western weeds; ARS Rice Research 
Laboratory, Beaumont Texas; cotton ginning research; human 
nutrition research; continued funding for the research project, 
``Behavioral Ecology and Management of Insect Pests with 
Semiochemicals'' in collaboration with the University of 
Florida; ongoing formosan termite control and research program 
at the Southern Regional Research Center; germplasm evaluation 
and genetic improvement of oats and wild rice; disease and 
insect control mechanisms for the enhancement of sugar 
germplasm resistance; development and use of molecular 
techniques in oat enhancement; soybean diseases; genetically 
enhanced wheat for quality productivity, and resistance to 
biotic and abiotic stresses; control of foliar diseases and 
smuts of wheat; Northwest nursery crops research; biological 
control of yellow starthistle and other nonindigenous plant 
pests in the Western U.S.; low sugar potatoes; grain legume 
research; biochemical and molecular regulation of preharvest 
sprouting and grain dormancy in wheat; germplasm enhancement 
and cultivar development of blackberry, strawberry, blueberry, 
and raspberry; small grains research; plant genetics equipment; 
developing integrated weed management systems for efficient 
evaluation of temperate legumes and warm-season grass mixtures 
in sustainable production systems; hops research; shallow 
groundwater management systems for arid irrigated areas; 
development and evaluation of new remote sensing technologies 
to assess food and fiber production; rice genetics research; 
enhancing rice grain quality; technology to enhance soybean oil 
for food and non-food uses; ecologically based management of 
salt cedar (tamarix) in the Western U.S.; defining the 
molecular mechanisms of heavy metal chilation and sequestration 
in plants; floriculture; barley and oat germplasm enhancement 
and small grains germplasm evaluation and maintenance; reduced 
herbicide inputs for effective weed management systems to 
improve water quality; sensors and systems for site-specific 
crop management to improve environmental quality; quantitative 
genetic analysis and improvement of corn populations; genetics 
of host resistance to pathogens in cereal crops; ecologically-
based pest management of selected insect pests of corn; 
enhancement of strawberry, blueberry, and other small fruit 
crops through molecular approaches and breeding; biology and 
control of virus diseases of sorghum; exploration and 
maintenance of fungi and plants for biorational control of 
agricultural pests; improving resistance of peanut to 
biological stress through germplasm and cultural enhancement; 
characterization of induced cytokinin changes in wheat; 
partitioning of photosynthate as influenced by genotype, 
mycorrhizae and air enriched with CO2; residue 
management and grass seed cropping systems for sustainable 
agriculture; preservation of clonal genetic resources of 
temperate fruit, nut, and specialty crops; parasite mite 
control in honey bee colonies utilized in honey production and 
crop pollination; the role of life strategies of 
phytopathogenic bacteria in the epidemiology of foliar 
diseases; tropical aquaculture feeds and culture technology, 
development of shrimp feeds; ecologically-based technologies 
for controlling ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme disease; 
identification and characterization of quantitative trait loci 
resistance to disease in chicken; optimizing reproduction 
efficiency to enhance profit and sustainability of range beef 
production; metabolism and nutritional management of prolific 
sows during gestation and lactation; animal health consortium; 
flavor optimization of major food crops through control of 
metabolic processes; conversion of crops to products with 
higher added value through directed molecular evolution; 
thermomechanical processing of natural polymers; enhanced use 
of plant proteins: identifying, isolating and relating 
structures to properties; new crops for industrial products; 
novel carbohydrate-based materials via bioconversion processes; 
bioprocess and metabolic engineering technologies for biofuels 
and value-added co-products; comparative textural analysis of 
fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables; improving quality of 
fresh and fresh-cut produce by preventing deterioration in cold 
storage; postharvest handling and mechanization to minimize 
damage for fruits; improved peanut product quality and 
bioactive nutrient composition with genetic resources; develop, 
evaluate and transfer technology to improve efficiency and 
quality in peanuts; dietary assessments of rural older persons; 
warmwater foodfish health management research; anaerobic 
microbiological processes in animal waste management; improving 
sugarcane productivity by conventional and molecular approaches 
to genetic development; developing integrated weed management 
systems for efficient and sustainable sugarcane production; and 
research on phytoestrogens at the Southern Regional 
Agricultural Research Center.
    The Committee has reviewed and agrees with the President's 
recommendation to fund research laboratories at Prosser, WA and 
Mandan, ND. The Committee believes that these locations are 
essential components of the Department's agricultural research 
program.
    Crops at Risk.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a new 
special grant.
    Diaprepes Root Weevil (Diaprepes abbreviates).--The 
committee recognizes the seriousness of the Diaprepes root 
weevil and its impact on citrus, corn, sugarcane, ornamental 
plants, cotton, yucca, papaya, and sweetpotato. It is important 
this research be continued and the committee directs $400,000 
to the University of Florida for research and eradication of 
this pest.
    Ft. Pierce, FL.--The committee recognizes the important 
research currently being conducted at the Ft. Pierce laboratory 
in FY 1999. The Committee recognizes the expanded role the 
facility is providing in horticultural science research. The 
Committee provides $600,000 to support additional research 
scientists.
    Emerging infectious animal and plant diseases.--The 
Committee is keenly aware of the potential threats posed to 
agriculture and animal and human health from emerging plant and 
animal diseases, new and emerging noxious weeds, biological 
control of weedy plants that severely threaten biodiversity and 
ecosystem functions, and emerging plant diseases that include 
potato blight, sorghum ergot, etc. This research is directed to 
ARS research centers at: Beltsville, MD; Frederick, MD; College 
Station, TX; Weslaco, TX; Albany, CA; and Montpellier, FR. The 
Committee directs the ARS to provide the same funding level 
that was provided in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee is particularly sensitive to the need to 
accelerate research to protect U.S. livestock and human health 
against emerging infectious and zoonotic diseases such as 
tuberculosis, brucellosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis, 
salmonella, etc. Funding should also be provided to combat 
these diseases as well as develop critical diagnostic tests and 
basic information for Scrapie, BSE, Johne's disease, porcine 
reproductive and respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and 
various other disease agents of livestock. These funds are to 
expand the ongoing research carried out at existing ARS 
laboratories located at: Pullman, WA; Laramie, WY; Athens, GA; 
Beltsville, MD; and the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, 
IA. The Committee directs the ARS to provide the same level of 
funding for these projects as provided in fiscal year 1999.
    Endophyte Research.--There are over 35 million acres of 
endophyte infected tall fescue pastures in the U.S. responsible 
for annual losses to the beef cattle industry. The Committee 
provides $400,000 for continued cooperative research with the 
University of Arkansas, University of Missouri, and Oregon 
State University.
    Floriculture and nursery crop research.--The Committee 
notes that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than 
10% of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The Committee 
provides an increase of $2 million to implement this research. 
A portion of this funding should continue to be allocated to 
university partners, including California University and 
Cornell University, through cooperative agreements. Of the 
additional funding, $200,000 is provided for research at Ohio 
State University to support the Ornamental Plant Germplasm 
Center.
    Food Safety research.--The Committee recognizes that 
research and new technology developments are needed to 
identify, control and eliminate Listeria monocytogenes and 
E.coli 0157:H7 pathogens contamination in foods. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1 million to control and prevent 
Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry 
products and E.coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products. This 
research, details of which would be prioritized through 
discussion with meat and poultry producers and processors, 
should be done in coordination with the Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service.
    Fusarium head blight.--Generally known as ``scab'', 
Fusarium Head Blight poses an extremely serious threat to all 
classes of wheat and barley in the U.S. The effects of scab are 
mostly manifested as reduced farm yield, lowered test weights, 
and reduced grain quality. The problem is amplified because 
scab infected grain is usually contaminated with vomitoxin, a 
toxic metabolyte producedwhen the fungal pathogen invades the 
developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing $3,000,000 to 
support the ongoing cooperative effort with the 12 land-grant 
universities to control this serious threat to the wheat and barley 
industries.
    Genetic resources.--The Committee concurs that there is 
need to invest in new biotechnological approaches of genomics 
which promise to unlock secrets controlling agriculturally 
important traits of plant and animal germplasm. The Committee 
supports funding of the Department's Food Genome Initiative. 
The Committee directs the ARS to provide the same level of 
funding for this project that was provided in FY 1999.
    Golden Nematode.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$200,000 to Cornell University to support golden nematode 
research in plant breeding, nematology and activities involving 
seed production and extension.
    Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides $250,000 for a greenhouse to maintain lettuce 
germplasm for the preservation, maintenance, and evaluation of 
germplasm.
    Groundwater Salinity, Riverside, CA.--The Committee 
provides $600,000 for continued research into groundwater 
salinity in the Sacramento Valley.
    Grape Rootstock.--Grapes are now the highest value fruit 
crop in the nation and sixth largest crop overall. Most of the 
crop is processed to raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby 
adding enormous value to the crop. The Committee provides 
$300,000 for research at Geneva, NY for vitally needed research 
on rootstock development.
    Human nutrition research.--The Committee recognizes the 
ongoing efforts of the ARS Human Nutrition Centers and provides 
an additional $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 from within funds 
appropriated under Agricultural Research Service for the 
Centers located at Little Rock, AR; Beltsville, MD; Boston, MA; 
Houston, TX; San Francisco, CA; and Grand Forks, ND. These 
resources will further research investigations on dietary 
intake, and reduced risk of chronic diseases.
    Lyme disease.--Within the amount provided for the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
increase of $197,600 to continue support for the Northeast 
Area-Wide Tick Control Project in order to achieve a dramatic 
reduction of lyme ticks thereby reducing Lyme disease risks in 
humans. The Committee also provides an increase of $172,900 for 
an extramural research project on ecologically-based 
technologies for controlling Ixodes Scapularis and reducing 
Lyme disease. The Committee supports $200,000 for Lyme disease 
cooperative research at New Haven, Connecticut.
    Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides $250,000 for a geneticist plant breeder at the ARS 
research station at Salinas, CA.
    Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research.--The Committee is 
aware of the important research carried out by ARS to develop 
alternatives to methyl bromide which is effectively utilized as 
a soil farming agent and pest control for stored commodities. 
The Committee provides $14,380,000 for methyl bromide research, 
the same as the fiscal year 1999 funding level. The committee 
expects ARS to devote a significant portion of this funding to 
in-the-field research.
    Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation.--The Committee is aware of 
the importance of irrigation research in reducing risk and 
increasing yields on the farm. The Committee directs ARS to 
allocate $200,000 for cooperative research into irrigation 
methods and technologies at the University of Missouri Delta 
Center in Portageville, Missouri.
    Organic Minor Crop Specialist, Salinas, CA.--The Committee 
provides $250,000 for an organic minor crop specialist at the 
ARS research station at Salinas, CA.
    Plant Genetics Equipment.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund research into 
plant genetics equipment.
    Peanut Quality Research.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 
for peanut quality research at ARS in Athens, GA.
    Post-harvest and Controlled Atmosphere Chamber.--The 
Committee provides $300,000 for a full-time scientist position 
and the necessary resources to conduct research into post-
harvest and controlled atmosphere techniques aimed at reducing 
insect and disease problems in lettuce destined for Japan and 
other export markets.
    Precision Agriculture, Alabama.--The Committee provides 
$500,000 for global positioning system, geographic 
informational system, and remote sensing for precision farming.
    Range research.--The Committee is cognizant of the 
important work carried out at the ARS rangeland research 
station at Burns, OR. Additional staffing is required to meet 
research needs in support of action agencies, farmers and 
ranchers in the Great Basin rangeland area--primarily Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho and Nevada. The Committee directs the ARS to 
provide at least the same level of funding for this research in 
FY 2000 that was provided in fiscal year 1999.
    Red Snapper Aquaculture, Alabama.--The Committee provides 
$600,000 for crucial research that would assist in the 
scientific development of red snapper aquaculture, promote the 
improvement of red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
assist in providing economic opportunities to coastal 
communities.
    Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the need for 
evaluation and enhancement of rice germplasm. From within funds 
appropriated under Agricultural Research Service, the Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the 
National Rice Research Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
    Risk Mitigation.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for a 
new special grant.
    Root diseases in wheat and barley.--The Committee directs 
the ARS to provide at least the same level of funding for this 
project in FY 2000 that was provided in FY 1999 for the ARS 
Root Disease and Biological Control Laboratory, Pullman, WA for 
investigation of root diseases. Major research breakthroughs 
are needed in root disease management to achieve high yields 
possible under conservation tillage systems.
    Safe Seafood, Massachusetts.--The Committee provides 
$300,000 to conduct industry-wide research of fresh-water fish, 
salt-water fish, mollusan shellfish, and other aquaculture.
    Small fruits research.--The Committee directs the ARS to 
provide funding at least at the FY 1999 level in FY 2000 for 
the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR. 
The Center conducts and coordinates research efforts unique to 
small fruit industries in the Pacific Northwest, including 
breeding, insect, disease management, product development, and 
market analyses.
    Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the need for 
additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet 
research program at Ft. Collins, CO to strengthen sugarbeet 
research at the ARS laboratory. The Committee directs the ARS 
to fund this project in FY 2000 at least at the funding level 
as in FY 1999.
    Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position.--The Committee 
provides $300,000 for a new USDA ARS sustainable vineyard 
practices position at UC, Davis. This research position will be 
responsible for development of biologically and environmentally 
sound practices for grape growing which enhance compatibility 
with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.
    Tropical Aquaculture.--The committee recognizes the 
economic benefits of the expansion of the market for ornamental 
tropical fish, the committee directs $200,000 for ongoing 
research at the Ruskin Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory.
    U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for the U.S. Plant 
and Water Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX.

                        Buildings and Facilities

1999 appropriation....................................       $56,437,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        44,500,000
Provided in the bill..................................        44,500,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       -11,937,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$44,500,000, a decrease of $11,937,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 2000     Committee
                                                  estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

California:
    Western Regional Research Center, Albany..       $2,600       $2,600
    Western Human Nutrition Lab, Davis........        9,000        9,000
Illinois:
    National Center for Agricultural                  1,800        1,800
     Utilization Research, Peoria.............
Louisiana:
    Southern Regional Research Center, New            5,500        5,500
     Orleans..................................
Maryland:
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center...       13,000       13,000
New York:
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.........        8,200        8,200
Pennsylvania:
    Eastern Regional Research Center,                 4,400        4,400
     Philadelphia.............................
                                               -------------------------
      Total, Buildings and Facilities.........      $44,500      $44,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Arboretum, District of Columbia.--From within 
amounts available due to savings and slippage in the Buildings 
and Facilities account, the Committee directs the Agricultural 
Research Service to obligate up to $500,000 for engineering and 
design to implement the new Master Plan for the National 
Arboretum, with emphasis on a new entrance off Bladensburg 
Road. The Committee notes that the budget request estimates 
that the Buildings and Facilities account will have an 
unobligated balance of $84,000,000 available at the start of 
fiscal year 2000, with $63,000,000 remaining available at the 
end of the year. While these funds are committed to various 
projects, the Committee expects that this work at the National 
Arboretum can be financed within existing funds.
    Reprogrammings.--The Committee will consider reprogramming 
requests for the following projects from within amounts 
available due to savings and slippage in the Buildings and 
Facilities account:
          Avian Disease Oncology Laboratory (East Lansing, MI)
          Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory 
        (Maricopa, AZ)

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

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

                   Research and Education Activities

1999 appropriation....................................      $481,216,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       468,965,000
Provided in the bill..................................       467,327,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       -13,889,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,638,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $180,545,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and $26,873,000 above the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $21,932,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and $2,050,000 above the budget 
request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University, the committee provides an appropriation of 
$29,676,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999 and $1,941,000 above the budget request.

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 1999     FY 2000       Committee
                                 enacted    estimate       provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
          ACTIVITIES

Payments Under Hatch Act.....    $180,545    $153,672           $180,545
Cooperative forestry research      21,932      19,882             21,932
 (McIntire-Stennis)..........
Payments to 1890 colleges and      29,676      27,735             29,676
 Tuskegee....................
Special Research Grants (P.L.
 89-106):
    Aegilops cylindricum              360           0                360
     (jointed goatgrass) (WA)
    Aflatoxin (IL)...........         113           0                113
    Agriculture based                 250           0                250
     industrial lubricants
     (IA)....................
    Agricultural                      131           0                131
     diversification (HI)....
    Agricultural diversity/           250           0                250
     Red River Corridor (MN/
     ND).....................
    Agriculture water usage           300           0                264
     (GA)....................
    Alliance for food                 300           0                200
     protection (NE, GA).....
    Alternative crops (ND)...         550           0                550
    Alternative crops for             100           0                100
     arid lands (TX).........
    Alternative marine and            308           0                308
     fresh water species (MS)
    Alternative salmon                400           0                400
     products (AK)...........
    Animal science food             1,521           0              1,521
     safety consortium (AR,
     IA, KS).................
    Apple fire blight (MI,            500           0                500
     NY).....................
    Aquaculture (LA).........         330           0                330
    Aquaculture (MS).........         592           0                592
    Aquaculture (VA).........         100           0                100
    Aquaculture product and           750           0                750
     marketing development
     (WV)....................
    Babcock Institute, (WI)..         400           0                400
    Binational agriculture            400       2,000                400
     research and development
    Biodiesel research (MO)..         152           0                152
    Brucellosis vacinos (MT).         150           0                150
    Center for animal health          113           0                113
     and productivity (PA)...
    Center for innovative             381           0                381
     food technology (OH)....
    Center for rural studies          200           0                200
     (VT)....................
    Chesapeake Bay                    150           0                150
     agroecology (MD)........
    Chesapeake Bay                    385           0                385
     aquaculture.............
    Citrus tristeza..........         500           0                750
    Coastal cultivars (GA)...           0           0                200
    Competitiveness of                680           0                680
     agricultural products
     (WA)....................
    Contagious equine metitis         250           0                250
     (KY)....................
    Cool season legume                329           0                329
     research (ID, WA).......
    Cotton research (TX).....         200           0              (\2\)
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA).         150           0                150
    Cranberry/blueberry               220           0                220
     disease & breed (NJ)....
    Dairy and meat goat                63           0                 63
     research (TX)...........
    Delta rural                       148           0                148
     revitalization (MS).....
    Designing foods for               250           0                250
     health (TX).............
    Drought mitigation (NE)..         200           0                200
    Ecosystems (AL)..........         500           0                500
    Environmental research            486           0                400
     (NY)....................
    Environmental risk                100           0                200
     factors/cancer (NY).....
    Expanded wheat pasture            285           0                285
     (OK)....................
    Farm and rural business            87           0                 87
     finance (IL)............
    Feed barley for rangeland         600           0                600
     cattle (MT).............
    Floriculture (HI)........         250           0                250
    Food and Agriculture              800           0                800
     Policy Research
     Institute (IA, MO)......
    Food irradiation (IA)....         200           0                200
    Food marketing policy             400           0                400
     center (CT).............
    Food processing center             42           0                 42
     (NE)....................
    Food quality (AK)........         350           0                350
    Food Safety..............       5,000       (\1\)              5,000
    Food safety (AL).........         300           0                300
    Food systems research             225           0                225
     group (WI)..............
    Forestry (AR)............         523           0                523
    Fruit and vegetable               320           0                320
     market analysis (AZ, MO)
    Generic commodity                 212           0                198
     promotion research and
     evaluation (NY).........
    Global change............       1,000       1,567              1,000
    Global marketing support          127           0                127
     service (AR)............
    Grain sorghum (KS).......         106           0                106
    Grass seed cropping               423           0                423
     systems for a
     sustainable agriculture
     (WA, OR, ID)............
    Human nutrition (IA).....         473           0                473
    Human nutrition (LA).....         752           0                752
    Human nutrition (NY).....         622           0                622
    Hydroponic tomato                 200           0                200
     production (OH).........
    Illinois-Missouri               1,184           0              1,184
     Alliance for
     Biotechnology...........
    Improved dairy management         296           0                296
     practices (PA)..........
    Improved fruit practices          445           0                445
     (MI)....................
    Infectious disease                250           0                250
     research (CO)...........
    Institute for Food              1,250           0              1,250
     Science and Engineering
     (AR)....................
    Integrated production             180           0                180
     systems (OK)............
    International                     250           0                250
     agricultural market
     structures and
     institutions (KY).......
    International arid lands          400           0                400
     consortium..............
    Iowa biotechnology              1,564           0              1,564
     consortium..............
    Livestock and dairy               475           0                475
     policy (NY, TX).........
    Lowbush blueberry                 220           0                220
     research (ME)...........
    Maple research (VT)......         100           0                100
    Meadowfoam (OR)..........         300           0                300
    Michigan biotechnology            675           0                675
     consortium..............
    Midwest advanced food             423           0                423
     manufacturing alliance..
    Midwest agricultural              592           0                592
     products (IA)...........
    Milk safety (PA).........         250           0                250
    Minor use animal drugs...         550         550                550
    Molluscan shellfish (OR).         400           0                400
    Multi-commodity research          364           0                364
     (OR)....................
    Multi-cropping strategies         127           0                127
     for aquaculture (HI)....
    National biological               254         254                254
     impact assessment.......
    Nematode resistance               127           0                127
     genetic engineering (NM)
    Non-food uses of                   64           0                 64
     agricultural products
     (NE)....................
    Oil resources from desert         175           0                175
     plants (NM).............
    Organic waste utilization         100           0                100
     (NM)....................
    Pasture and forage                225           0                225
     research (UT)...........
    Peach tree short life             162           0                162
     (SC)....................
    Pest control alternatives         106           0                106
     (SC)....................
    Phytophthora root rot             127           0                127
     (NM)....................
    Plant, drought, and               150           0                150
     disease resistance gene
     cataloging (NM).........
    Postharvest rice straws           300           0                  0
     (CA)....................
    Potato research..........       1,300           0              1,300
    Precision agriculture             500           0                500
     (KY)....................
    Precision agriculture           1,000           0              1,000
     (MS)....................
    Preharvest food safety            212           0                212
     (KS)....................
    Preservation and                  226           0                226
     processing research (OK)
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM)         200           0                200
    Regional barley gene              400           0                400
     mapping project.........
    Regionalized implications         294           0                294
     of farm programs (MO,
     TX).....................
    Rice modeling (AR).......         296           0                296
    Rural Development Centers         523         423                523
     (PA, IA (ND), MS, OR,
     LA).....................
    Rural policies institute          644           0                644
     (NE, IA, MO)............
    Russian wheat aphid (CO).         200           0                200
    Seafood and aquaculture           305           0                305
     harvesting, processing,
     and marketing (MS)......
    Small fruit research (OR,         300           0                300
     WA, ID).................
    Southwest consortium for          338           0                338
     plant genetics and water
     resources...............
    Soybean cyst nematode             475           0                475
     (MO)....................
    STEEP III--water quality          500           0                500
     in Northwest............
    Sustainable agriculture             0           0                300
     (CA)....................
    Sustainable agriculture           445           0                445
     (MI)....................
    Sustainable agriculture            95           0                 95
     and natural resources
     (PA)....................
    Sustainable agriculture            59           0                 59
     systems (NE)............
    Sustainable beef supply           500           0                500
     (MT)....................
    Sustainable pest                  400           0                400
     management for dryland
     wheat (MT)..............
    Swine waste management            500           0                500
     (NC)....................
    Tillage, silviculture,            212           0                212
     waste management (LA)...
    Tomato wilt virus (GA)...         200           0                200
    Trade and policy (ND)....           0         300                300
    Tropical and subtropical        2,724           0              2,724
     research................
    Turkey carnavirus (IN)...         200           0                200
    Urban pests (GA).........          64           0                  0
    Vidalia onions (GA)......         100           0                100
    Viticulture consortium          1,000           0              1,000
     (NY, CA)................
    Water conservation (KS)..          79           0                 79
    Water quality............       3,461       (\1\)              3,461
    Weed control (ND)........         423           0                423
    Wetland plants (LA)......         600           0                600
    Wheat genetic research            261           0                261
     (KS)....................
    Wood utilization research       5,136           0              5,136
     (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI,
     ID, TN).................
    Wool research (TX, MT,            300           0                300
     WY).....................
    Unspecified reduction....           0           0               -550
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Special Research      63,116       5,094             62,916
       Grants................
                              ==========================================
Improved pest control:
    Emerging pest/critical            200         467                200
     issues..................
    Expert IPM decision               177         260                177
     support system..........
    Integrated pest                 2,731       2,731              2,731
     management..............
    Minor crop pest                 8,990      10,711              8,990
     management (IR-4).......
    Pest management                 1,623       4,200              1,623
     alternatives............
    Pesticide impact                1,327       (\1\)              1,327
     assessment..............
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest         15,048      18.369             15,048
       control...............
                              ==========================================
Competitive research grants:
    Animals..................      29,000      49,000             29,000
    Markets, trade and              4,600       8,000              4,600
     development.............
    Nutrition, food safety         16,000      28,000             16,000
     and health..............
    Natural resources and the      20,500      32,000             20,500
     environment.............
    Plants...................      41,000      69,000             41,000
    Processes and new               8,200      14,000              8,200
     products................
                              ------------------------------------------
    Proportional reduction...           0           0            -13,889
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Competitive          119,300     200,000            105,411
       research grants.......
                              ==========================================
Animal Health and Disease           5,109       4,775              5,109
 (Sec. 1433).................
Alternative crops............         750  ..........                750
Critical Agricultural                 600  ..........                600
 Materials Act...............
1994 Institutions research     ..........         667  .................
 program.....................
Graduate fellowship grants...       3,000       3,000              3,000
Institution challenge grants.       4,350       4,350              4,350
Multicultural scholars              1,000       1,000              1,000
 program.....................
Hispanic education                  2,850       3,183              2,850
 partnership grants..........
Secondary agriculture                 500  ..........                500
 education...................
Aquaculture Centers (Sec.           4,000       4,000              4,000
 1475).......................
Sustainable agriculture......       8,000       8,500              8,000
Capacity building grants            9,200       9,200              9,200
 (1890 institutions).........
Payments to the 1994                1,552       1,500              1,552
 Institutions................
Federal Administration:
    Agriculture development           564  ..........                564
     in the American Pacific.
    Agriculture waste                 250  ..........                250
     utilization (WV)........
    Alternative fuels                 218  ..........                218
     characterization
     laboratory (ND).........
    Animal waste management           250  ..........                250
     (OK)....................
    Center for Agricultural           355  ..........                355
     and Rural Development
     (IA)....................
    Center for North American          87  ..........                 87
     Studies (TX)............
    Cotton research (TX).....       (\2\)           0                200
    Data information system..       1,000       2,000              1,000
    Geographic information            844  ..........                844
     system..................
    Mariculture (NC).........         250  ..........                250
    Mississippi Valley State          583  ..........                583
     University..............
    National Center for               300  ..........                300
     Peanut Competitiveness..
    Office of extramural              310         588                310
     programs................
    Pay costs and FERS.......       1,100       1,100              1,100
    Peer panels..............         350         350                350
    PM-10 study (CA, WA).....         873  ..........                873
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,         3,354  ..........              3,354
     HI, MS, MA, SC).........
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal               10,688       4,038             10,888
       Administration........
                              ==========================================
      Total, Research and         481,216     468,965            467,327
       Education Activities..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For FY 2000, this program is proposed to be funded under Integrated
  Activities.
\2\ Project funded under special research grants in fiscal year 1999,
  under Federal Administration in fiscal year 2000.

    Citrus tristeza virus research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of Citrus tristeza Virus (CTV) research. The 
project was funded at $750,000 in FY 1998 and $500,000 in FY 
1999 for cooperative CTV research. However, the Committee 
believes the most effective use of these funds is through the 
Special Research Grants account administered by CSREES. Funding 
in the amount of $750,000 is provided in that account in FY 
2000 for CTV research. The balance is to remain in support of 
the in-house Ft. Pierce citrus research program.
    National Rural Behavioral Health Center.--In light of the 
continuing frequency of recent devastating natural disasters, 
the Committee urges the Secretary to examine the Department's 
full range of programs and services that might be employed to 
assist residents of rural areas deal with the emotional impact 
of these disasters. In particular, the Committee is aware of 
the outstanding work being done by the National Rural 
Behavioral Health Center at the University of Florida. Working 
in the wake of Hurricane Andrew and the North Dakota floods, 
the Center has developed model programs for training extension 
agents who are often the first responders in natural disasters, 
in crisis intervention and stress management, and to better 
equip them to deliver behavioral health programs to the victims 
of natural disasters. The Committee urges the Department, 
within this and other accounts, to provide support for the 
Center to build on its initiative and to extend the knowledge 
gained so that it might be used to assist rural victims of such 
disasters throughout the nation.
    Peanut allergies.--The Committee recognizes the severe 
difficulties that peanut allergies cause to individuals with 
sensitivity to this important commodity. Progress is being made 
in developing vaccines to alleviate the effects of peanut and 
other food allergies. To continue the progress in the research 
efforts, the Committee directs that $300,000 be redirected from 
the competitive researchgrant program for process and new 
products, administered through the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service and these monies be directed to Peanut 
Allergy Research.
    Special Research Grants.--One project (Cotton Research) is 
tranferred from funding under ``Special Research Grants'' to 
``Federal Administration''.
    Secondary Agriculture Education.--The Committee will expect 
that grants under this program will be awarded no later than 
January 1, 2000.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

1999 appropriation....................................      ($4,600,000)
2000 budget estimate..................................       (4,600,000)
Provided in the bill..................................       (4,600,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee provides $4,600,000, the same as the amount available 
in fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

                          Extension Activities

1999 appropriation....................................      $437,987,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       401,603,000
Provided in the bill..................................       438,987,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................        +1,000,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       +37,384,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $438,987,000 an increase of $1,000,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase of 
$37,384,000 above the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY 1999    FY 2000    Committee
                                         enacted    estimate  provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)...............   $276,548   $257,753    $276,548
Smith Lever: 3(d)
    Farm safety.......................      3,000  .........       3,000
    Food and nutrition education           58,695     61,043      58,695
     (EFNEP)..........................
    Food safety.......................      7,365      (\1\)       7,365
    Indian reservation agents.........      1,714      5,000       1,714
    Pest management...................     10,783     12,269      10,783
    Pesticide applicator training.....  .........      1,500  ..........
    Pesticide impact assessment.......      3,214      (\1\)       3,214
    Rural development centers.........        908        908         908
    Sustainable agriculture...........      3,309      3,309       3,309
    Water quality.....................      9,561      (\1\)       9,561
    Youth at risk.....................      9,000     10,000       9,000
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee............     25,843     25,090      25,843
1890 facilities grants................      8,426     12,000       8,426
Renewable Resources Extension Act.....      3,192      3,192       3,192
Rural health and safety education.....      2,628  .........       2,628
Extension services at the 1994              2,060      3,500       2,060
 institutions.........................
                                       ---------------------------------
      Subtotal........................    426,246    395,564     426,246
                                       =================================
Federal Administration and special
 grants:
    Ag in the classroom...............        208        476         208
    Beef producers' improvement (AR)..        197  .........         197
    Delta teachers academy............      3,500  .........       3,500
    Diabetes detection, prevention            550  .........         550
     (WA).............................
    Extension specialist (AR).........         99  .........          99
    Extension specialist (MS).........        100  .........         100
    General administration............      4,787      5,563       5,787
    Income enhancement demonstration          246  .........         246
     (OH).............................
    Integrated cow/calf resources             300  .........         300
     management (IA)..................
    National Center for Agriculture           195  .........         195
     Safety (IA)......................
    Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS).....        326  .........         326
    Pilot tech. transfer (WI).........        163  .........         163
    Range improvement (NM)............        197  .........         197
    Rural development (NM)............        280  .........         280
    Rural development (OK)............        150  .........         150
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).........        246  .........         246
    Wood biomass as an alternative            197  .........         197
     farm product (NY)................
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration...     11,741      6,039      12,741
                                       =================================
      Total, Extension Activities.....    437,987    401,603     438,987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed to be funded under Integrated Activities account.

    Farm *A*Syst/AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for 
Extension Activities, $500,000 for Farm *A*Syst voluntary 
pollution prevention programs, and $3,055,000 for AgrAbility, 
of which $1,000,000 is displayed under general administration.
    4-H After School Program, Los Angeles, CA.--Within the 
funds provided for extension activities, the Committee expects 
consideration for a $420,000 innovative 4-H after school 
program to be administered by the Los Angeles County 
Cooperative Extension Office of the University of California.

                         integrated activities

1999 appropriation....................................                 0
2000 budget estimates.................................       $72,844,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +10,000,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       -62,844,000

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 1999         FY 2000        Committee
                                                                      enacted        estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Activities:
    Small farm initiative.......................................  ..............      $4,000,000  ..............
    Water quality...............................................           (\1\)      16,204,000  ..............
    Food safety.................................................           (\1\)      15,000,000  ..............
    Pesticide impact assessment.................................           (\1\)       4,640,000  ..............
    Crops at risk from FQPA implementation......................  ..............       3,000,000  ..............
    FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems....  ..............      10,000,000  ..............
    Methyl bromide transition program...........................  ..............       5,000,000  ..............
    Food recovery and gleaning..................................  ..............      15,000,000  ..............
    Unspecified integrated activities...........................  ..............  ..............      10,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Integrated Activities..............................           (\1\)      72,844,000      10,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Special research grants and Smith-Lever 3(d) programs for water quality (totaling $13,022,000 in fiscal year
  1999), food safety (totaling $12,365,000 in fiscal year 1999), and pesticide impact assessment (totaling
  $4,541,000 in fiscal year 1999) are proposed to be funded under Integrated Activities for fiscal year 2000.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $10,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$62,844,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommends restoration of the related special 
research grants and Smith-Lever 3(d) programs to the fiscal 
year 1999 levels and recommends an appropriation under this new 
account to be applied to those programs showing most promise.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

1999 appropriation....................................          $618,000
2000 budget estimate..................................           641,000
Provided in the bill..................................           618,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................           -23,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$618,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $23,000 below the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         Salaries and Expenses

1999 appropriation....................................      $425,803,000
2000 budget estimate \1\..............................       435,445,000
Provided in the bill..................................       440,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +18,197,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       +8,555,000

\1\ Does not include additional resources from the Federal Agriculture
  Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct appropriation.

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

                          committee provisions

    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1999      FY 2000     Committee
                                     enacted      request     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
    Ag. quarantine inspection....      $30,648      $34,576      $34,576
    User fees \1\................       88,000       95,000       87,000
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, AQI..........      118,648      129,576      121,576
                                  ======================================

    Cattle ticks.................        4,627        4,627        5,114
    Foot-and-mouth disease.......        3,803        3,803        3,803
    Import/export inspection.....        6,815        7,166        7,166
    International programs.......        7,539        8,262        8,262
    Fruit fly exclusion and             22,970       25,204       25,204
     detection...................
    Screwworm....................       30,301       30,301       30,301
    Tropical bont tick...........          407          407          407
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease          195,110      209,346      201,833
       Exclusion.................
                                  ======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
 Monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and        63,389       67,989       67,989
     surveillance................
    Animal and plant health              5,855        6,116        6,116
     regulatory enforcement......
    National Animal Health                   0        1,218          627
     Emergency Management System.
    Pest detection...............        6,426        6,685        6,685
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Plant and Animal           75,670       82,008       81,417
       Health Monitoring.........
                                  ======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
 Programs:
    Aquaculture..................          567          567          667
    Biological control...........        8,160        8,160        8,160
    Boll weevil..................       16,209        3,320       16,209
    Brucellosis eradication......       11,864        9,527        9,527
    Emerging plant pests.........        1,410        3,510        3,510
    Golden nematode..............          435          580          580
    Gypsy moth...................        4,366        4,366        4,366
    Imported fire ant............        1,000            0          400
    Noxious weeds................          424        2,129        2,129
    Pink bollworm................        1,048        1,048        1,548
    Pseudorabies.................        4,567        4,567        4,567
    Scrapie......................        2,991        2,991        2,991
    Tuberculosis.................        4,920        4,920        4,920
    Wildlife Services operations.       29,997       28,161       29,997
    Witchweed....................        1,506        1,506        1,506
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Pest and Disease           89,464       75,352       91,077
       Management Programs.......
                                  ======================================
4. Animal Care:
    Animal welfare...............        9,175        9,690       10,175
    Horse protection.............          361          384          384
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Animal Care.........        9,536       10,074       10,559
                                  ======================================
5. Scientific & Technical
 Services:
    Biotechnology/environmental          7,393        9,054        9,054
     protection..................
    Integrated systems                   3,500        3,696        3,369
     acquisition.................
    Plant methods development            4,693        4,693        4,693
     labs........................
    Veterinary biologics.........       10,345       10,555       10,555
    Veterinary diagnostics.......       15,622       16,973       16,973
    Wildlife Services methods           10,365        9,589       10,365
     devel.......................
                                  --------------------------------------
          Total, Scientific and         51,918       54,560       55,009
           Technical Services....
                                  ======================================
6. Contingency fund..............        4,105        4,105        4,105
                                  ======================================
          Total, Salaries and         $425,803     $435,445     $444,000
           Expenses..............
Recap:
    Appropriated.................      337,803      340,445      357,000
    AQI User Fees................       88,000       95,000       87,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional resources provided in the Federal
  Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
  appropriations.

    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--The Committee 
provides an appropriation of $87,000,000 for the agricultural 
quarantine inspection user fee program, a decrease of 
$1,000,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a 
decrease of $8,000,000 below the budget request.
    Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs APHIS to assure, 
to the maximum extent possible, that all control activities be 
cost-shared with local sponsors. The Committee also expects 
APHIS to continue work related to blackbird damage control in 
Louisiana. The Committee provides $1,845,000 for support and 
expansion of rabies control including domestic programs and 
international collaboration. The Committee expects the program 
to target rabies in raccoons in the midwestern and eastern 
states and coyotes and gray foxes in Texas. Of this amount, the 
Committee expects a minimum of $400,000 to be targeted to 
rabies problems in New York state.
    The Committee expects APHIS to intensify its efforts in 
both research and operations to control migratory fish-eating 
birds, such as the double crested cormorant, which are causing 
serious problems to the Southeastern aquaculture industry.
    The Committee provides the same level of funding for 
wildlife services operations as for fiscal year 1999 and 
directs the Department to maintain at least the current level 
of aviation operations and aviation safety.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for research and evaluation 
of nicarbazin as a means of controlling goose and other avian 
populations to increase airport safety.
    Avocados.--The Committee urges the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service to continue working with U.S. avocado 
growers in implementing procedures for the safe importation of 
Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on the 
status of Mexican avocado imports including any problems in 
pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel and importation, 
including diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved 
destinations.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports the development 
of a program for the control, management, and eradication of 
the imported fire ant and provides $400,000 for this program of 
which $58,000 is for fire ant management, control and 
eradication in New Mexico.
    Hog cholera.--The Committee believes there is a very high 
risk of introduction of hog cholera into the United States due 
to the presence of the disease in the Caribbean. The Committee 
believes this should be viewed as an emergency situation and 
the following efforts should be undertaken: (1) preclearance of 
passengers entering the United States from high risk countries; 
(2) enhanced surveillance of high risk U.S. herds; (3) 
enforcement of the Swine Health Protection Act; and (4) 
improved training and educational efforts for state and Federal 
animal health officials and accredited veterinarians.
    Methods Development.--The Committee expects that activities 
funded by this appropriation shall continue to be carried out 
by APHIS Wildlife Services and in full cooperation with state 
wildlife management agencies and the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
    National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project for 
Dairy Cattle.--The Committee provides continued funding at the 
fiscal year 1999 level for the National Farm Animal 
Identification and Records Project for Dairy Cattle to be 
coordinated with the Holstein Association.
    Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee 
expects that imported products will be subjected to the same 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards as domestic products and 
those that do not meet the U.S. standards will be rejected. 
APHIS should provide adequate staffing levels at the borders 
and ports of entry to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary 
standards are upheld.
    Screwworm.--The Committee notes that the transfer of the 
screwworm facility in Chiapas, Mexico in several years may add 
to serious unemployment problems in the area. The Committee 
directs APHIS to work with other appropriate USDA and 
multinational agencies to develop possible solutions, including 
agricultural production cooperatives, which do not compete with 
U.S. agricultural production.
    Citrus Canker.--The Committee notes that the Department has 
allocated $25,000,000 from Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 
emergency funds to combat citrus canker in Florida. The 
Committee commends the Department for this decision and its 
collaboration with state agencies in Florida. The Committee 
recognizes that the eradication of citrus canker is a long-term 
challenge and encourages the Department to continue use of CCC 
funds for this critical endeavor
    Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee is aware of the 
serious threat to trees in New York and other states and 
directs the Department to continue its prevention and 
eradication efforts using CCC emergency funds and Emerging 
Plant Pest funds as necessary.
    Aquaculture.--The Committee provides an appropriation of 
$667,000 for aquaculture of which $100,000 is to support a 
wildlife biologist at the northwest Florida Aquaculture Farm in 
Blountstown, FL to serve north Florida, southeast Alabama and 
southwest Georgia.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee encourages APHIS to continue to 
provide monitoring and technical assistance as needed for 
cotton boll weevil detection and eradication in New Mexico.
    Brucellosis.--The Committee directs the Department to 
provide assistance to the Idaho Wildlife Brucellosis Plan 
including as much funding as possible.
    Blackbird.--The Committee urges the Department to 
implement, if feasible, a baiting program to control blackbird 
damage to sunflowers.
    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--Of the funds 
provided in this account the Committee provides not less than 
$750,000 for the National Poultry Improvement Program.
    Pink Bollworm Eradication.--The Committee recognizes the 
significant economic losses caused by pink bollwork infestation 
in Arizona, California, New Mexico and western Texas. The 
Committee understands that growers in Arizona plan to begin a 
three (3) year cost-shared PBW eradication program, which 
combines the use of sterile moths, Bt cotton varieties and 
limited application of conventional pesticides, and that this 
program will be expanded to include New Mexico and western 
Texas over the next six (6) years. While the Committee was 
unable to increase funding to the level requested by growers 
for the APHIS cost-share, it understands that initiation of 
this program is time sensitive. The Committee therefore expects 
the Secretary to instruct APHIS to utilize all available 
resources to provide financial assistance, in addition to the 
direct appropriation and grower assessments, to operate the 
program during this fiscal year.
    APHIS Operations at Miami International Airport.--Miami 
International Airport (MIA) is the nation's busiest 
international cargo and second busiest international passenger 
airport, handling over 2 million tons of cargo and 34 million 
passengers annually. The Committee is concerned about 
increasing delays in time in transit, duties and processing 
paperwork burdens attributable to shipment of goods and 
arriving passengers at MIA. The Committee therefore encourages 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide additional 
positions for APHIS cargo and passenger inspection operations 
at MIA.

                        Buildings and Facilities

1999 appropriation....................................        $7,700,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         7,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,200,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          -500,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings 
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$7,200,000, a decrease of $500,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           Marketing Services

1999 appropriation....................................       $48,831,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        60,182,000
Provided in the bill..................................        49,152,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +321,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       -11,030,000

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the 
authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities.Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory 
programs, AMS aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing and 
effective distribution and transportation of products from the Nation's 
farms.
    Programs administered by this agency include 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 Provisions

    For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$49,152,000, an increase of $321,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $11,030,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Committee has included $321,000 for wholesale market 
development as it relates to identifying alternative market 
strategies and enhancing marketing opportunities for small 
farmers.
    The Committee expects implementation of the Organic 
Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be 
published in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is aware that the Department guidelines for 
commodity purchase programs relating to small businesses 
effectively prohibit many farmer cooperatives from 
participating in such programs. The Committee has included a 
general provision that the USDA does not prohibit eligibility 
or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives in the commodity 
purchase program.
    The Committee expects the AMS to assist in determining the 
feasibility of upgrading the Montgomery State Farmers Market in 
Montgomery, Alabama.
    The Committee encourages the AMS to assist in determining 
the feasibility of a regional farmers market in Suffolk County, 
New York.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

1999 limitation.......................................     ($60,730,000)
2000 budget limitation................................      (60,730,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (60,730,000)
Comparison:
    1999 limitation...................................  ................
    2000 budget limitation............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides 
$60,730,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999 and the same as the budget request.

          Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                              (Section 32)

                     Marketing Agreement and Orders

1999 appropriation......................................   ($10,998,000)
2000 budget estimate....................................    (12,443,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (12,443,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +1,445,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

    The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all 
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural 
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of 
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or 
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the 
farmers' purchasing power.
    The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets 
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to 
encourage continued adequate production.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 1998 through 2000:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 1999 current    FY 2000 current
                                                           FY 1998 actual        estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts).........     $5,730,107,608     $5,701,865,817     $5,735,557,955
Less transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service.........................     -5,151,391,000     -5,048,150,000     -4,935,199,000
    Commerce Department................................        -65,734,190        -66,426,288        -69,920,523
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers.................................     -5,217,125,190     -5,114,576,288     -5,005,119,523
                                                        ========================================================
Budget authority.......................................        512,982,418        587,289,529        730,438,432
Unobligated balance available, start of year...........        233,868,235        131,966,602        105,588,209
Recoveries of prior year obligations...................         11,455,285                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Available for obligation...........................        758,305,938        719,256,131        836,026,641
Less obligations:
    Commodity procurement:
        Child nutrition purchases......................        400,000,000        400,000,000        400,000,000
        Emergency surplus removal......................        194,774,097        141,800,922        115,000,000
        Diversion payments.............................                  0         54,000,000                  0
        Disaster relief................................         15,200,000                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, commodity procurement.................        609,974,097        595,800,922        515,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
    Administrative funds:
        Commodity purchase service.....................          6,175,767          6,869,000          8,584,000
        Marketing agreements and orders................         10,189,472         10,998,000         12,443,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, administrative funds..................         16,365,239         17,867,000         21,027,000
                                                        ========================================================
          Total, obligations...........................        626,339,336        613,667,922        536,027,000
                                                        ========================================================
          Carryout.....................................        131,966,602        105,588,209        299,999,641
                                                        ========================================================
          Unobligated balance available, end of year...        131,966,602        105,588,209        299,999,641
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$12,443,000, an increase of $1,445,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

1999 appropriation....................................        $1,200,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         1,200,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,200,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,200,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         Salaries and Expenses

1999 appropriation....................................       $26,787,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        26,448,000
Provided in the bill..................................        26,448,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          -339,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides $26,448,000, a decrease 
of $339,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
the same amount as the budget request.
    The Committee has included an increase of $636,000 for 
packer competition and industry concentration, and an increase 
of $750,000 for poultry compliance activities.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

1999 limitation.........................................   ($42,557,000)
2000 budget limitation..................................    (42,557,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (42,557,000)
Comparison:
    1999 limitation..........................(.........................)
    2000 budget limitation...................(.........................)

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,557,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with 
notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for 
flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 
and oversight or other uncontrollable factors occur.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

1999 appropriation......................................        $446,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         469,000
Provided in the bill....................................         446,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................         -23,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $446,000, the same as 
the amount provided for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$23,000 below the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

1999 appropriation....................................      $616,986,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       652,955,000
Provided in the bill..................................       652,955,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +35,969,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $652,955,000, an increase of 
$35,969,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The Committee has provided the full amount requested in the 
fiscal year 2000 budget for the Food Safety Initiative and 
inspection costs.
    The Committee directs FSIS to produce a report describing 
the operation of its recall coordinator. The report should 
include the number of individuals in the recall coordinator's 
office, their job descriptions and the total office budget for 
fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The report should further include a 
description of the scope of the recall coordinator's authority 
and how the coordinator works with industry and with other 
federal agencies. The report should also include a description 
of the coordinator's activities during several recent meat and/
or poultry recalls. The report should be delivered to the 
Committee no later than January 30, 2000.
    Food safety activities are one of the highest priorities of 
the Congress and the Administration. In February, the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published proposed rules 
to allow the use of irradiation on red meat. Approval of these 
rules will provide important progress for safer food products. 
The Secretary is urged to accelerate the review and approval of 
the proposed rules. Additionally, the Committee directs the 
FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promptly 
complete their December 1995 proposal to harmonize and improve 
the efficiency of procedures used by the agencies for reviewing 
and approving the use of substances, including irradiation, in 
meat and poultry products. The Committee expects such a 
regulation would eliminate duplicative review and unnecessary 
delays in the approval of irradiation for USDA regulated 
products.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

1999 appropriation......................................        $572,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         595,000
Provided in the bill....................................         572,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................         -23,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $572,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999 and a decrease of $23,000 below the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency

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

                         Salaries and Expenses

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

1999 appropriation........................................  \1\ $714,499,0    ($211,265,000)   \1\($925,764,000)
                                                                        00
2000 budget estimate......................................     794,839,000     (211,378,000)     (1,006,217,000)
Provided in the bill......................................     794,839,000     (211,378,000)     (1,006,217,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation....................................     +80,340,000        (+113,000)       (+80,453,000)
    2000 budget estimate..................................  ..............  ................  ..................

    \1\ Excludes $40,000,000 in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 
105-277 and supplemental funding of $42,753,000 provided by H.R. 1141, 
which passed the House on March 24, 1999.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $794,839,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $211,378,000, for a total 
program level of $1,006,217,000. This is an increase of 
$80,453,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
(excluding supplementals) and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm 
loan and assistance programs to those in most economic need.
    Conservation Reserve Program.--The Committee directs, 
pursuant to P.L. 99-198, Title 12, section 1230 of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 as amended, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to extend the deadline for the completion of the 
thinning of pine trees on lands enrolled in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) to October 1, 2003.
    County Offices.--The Committee is concerned about any 
Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when 
the FSA office network is essential to helping farmers address 
critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee 
reiterates its strong view that no county office closure or 
consolidation should occur except in those locations for which 
closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to 
ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available 
to the public will not be reduced.

                         state mediation grants

1999 appropriation......................................      $2,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................       4,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       4,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +2,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program

1999 appropriation......................................        $450,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         450,000
Provided in the bill....................................         450,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $450,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

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

                         estimated loan levels

1999 loan level.........................................($2,284,958,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (3,008,734,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (3,008,734,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level.....................................  (+723,776,000)
    2000 budget estimate................................................

Note.--Excludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided 
by P.L. 105-277 to support a loan level of $540,510,000 and supplemental 
1999 appropriations of $109,609,000 to support a loan level of 
$1,095,000,000 provided by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March 
24, 1999.

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

                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 2000 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are:$559,422,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$128,049,000 is for direct loans and $431,373,000 is for guaranteed 
loans; $2,295,284,000 for farm operating loans, of which $500,000,000 
is for direct loans, $97,442,000 is for guaranteed subsidized loans, 
and $1,697,842,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $1,028,000 for 
Indian tribe land acquisition loans; $53,000,000 for emergency disaster 
loans; and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.

                      agriculture credit programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2000        Committee
                                                                   FY 1999 level     estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
    Direct......................................................       ($85,651)      ($128,049)      ($128,049)
    Guaranteed..................................................       (425,031)       (431,373)       (431,373)
Farm operating:
    Direct......................................................       (500,000)       (500,000)       (500,000)
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................       (948,276)     (1,697,842)     (1,697,842)
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................       (200,000)        (97,442)        (97,442)
Emergency disaster..............................................        (25,000)        (53,000)        (53,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................         (1,000)         (1,028)         (1,028)
Boll Weevil Eradication.........................................       (100,000)       (100,000)       (100,000)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................    ($2,284,958)    ($3,008,734)   ($3,008,734)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AExcludes $540,510,000 in 1999 supplemental loan level provided by P.L. 105-277 and $1,095,000,000 in 1999
  supplemental loan level provided by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March 24, 1999.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses

1999 appropriation...........................................      $54,465,000      $35,238,000     $219,861,000
2000 budget estimate.........................................       42,379,000       34,941,000      214,161,000
Provided in the bill.........................................       42,379,000       34,941,000      214,161,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation.......................................      -12,086,000         -297,000       -5,700,000
    2000 budget estimate.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............

 AExcludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided by P.L. 105-277 and supplemental 1999
  appropriations of $109,609,000, including $4,000,000 in loan program expenses, provided by H.R. 1141, which
  passed the House on March 24, 1999.

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

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                            FY 1999 estimate  FY 2000 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
  Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................       $12,822,000        $4,827,000        $4,827,000
    Guaranteed............................................         6,758,000         2,416,000         2,416,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        19,580,000         7,243,000         7,243,000
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:
    Direct................................................        34,150,000        29,300,000        29,300,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        11,000,000        23,940,000        23,940,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................        17,480,000         8,585,000         8,585,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        62,630,000        61,825,000        61,825,000
                                                           =====================================================
Boll weevil eradication...................................         1,440,000                 0                 0
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................           153,000            21,000            21,000
Emergency disaster........................................         5,900,000         8,231,000         8,231,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................        89,703,000        77,320,000        77,320,000
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:
  Salaries and expenses...................................       209,861,000       209,861,000       209,861,000
  Administrative expenses.................................        10,000,000         4,300,000         4,300,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................      $219,861,000      $214,161,000     $214,161,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AExcludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided by P.L. 105-277 and supplemental 1999
  appropriations of $109,969,000, including $4,000,000 in loan program expenses, provided by H.R. 1141, which
  passed the House on March 24, 1999.

    The committee directs the Secretary to consider State 
Agencies authorized to carry out boll weevil eradication 
program and eligible to receive APHIS cost share with respect 
to their bill weevil eradication efforts as eligible grower 
organizations for the purposes of the FSA Boll Weevil 
Eradication Loan Program. The committee also directs the 
Secretary to make funds available under the Boll Weevil 
Eradication Loan Program to eligible grower organizations who 
may be able to get credit from other sources if such private 
credit cannot be made at similar rates and terms to those 
available under this program.

                         Risk Management Agency

1999 appropriation......................................     $64,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      70,716,000
Provided in the bill....................................      70,716,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +6,716,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $70,716,000, an increase of $6,716,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request.

                        Support Services Bureau

Appropriations Act, 1999..............................  ................
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       $74,050,000
Provided in the bill..................................  ................
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................       -74,050,000

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

                          Committee provisions

    The Committee recommends no direct appropriation for the 
Support Services Bureau. If the Department wishes to proceed 
with this organizational structure, it is the Committee's view 
that it should be financed entirely by administrative transfers 
from the services agencies.
    Administrative Convergence.--The Committee reiterates its 
strong view that no office consolidation should occur except in 
those locations for which closures and relocations are 
supported by rigorous analysis to ensure such actions are cost 
effective, and that services available to the public will not 
be reduced.

                              Corporations

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

1999 appropriation....................................\1\ $1,504,036,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 997,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     997,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................    -507,036,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Estimated amounts. The 1999 appropriations bill provided such sums 
as may be necessary to administer the program. The FY 2000 proposed 
appropriation will do the same. In FY 2000 the budget proposes to apply 
a portion of the unobligated balance to cover expenses in FY 2000 thus 
reducing the appropriation needed.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, the same as provided in fiscal year 1999 and the 
same as the budget request.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

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

                 Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses

1999 appropriation....................................    $8,439,000,000
2000 budget estimate..................................  \1\ 14,368,000,0
                                                                      00
Provided in the bill..................................    14,368,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................    +5,929,000,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides $14,368,000,000, an 
increase of $5,929,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

       Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

1999 limitation.........................................    ($5,000,000)
2000 budget estimate....................................     (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (5,000,000)
Comparison:
    1999 limitation.....................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste 
Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000, 
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the 
same as the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

1999 appropriation......................................        $693,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         721,000
Provided in the bill....................................         693,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................         -28,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$693,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $28,000 below the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

                        Conservation Operations

1999 appropriation....................................      $641,243,000
2000 budget estimate..................................       680,679,000
Provided in the bill..................................       654,243,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................       +13,000,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................       -26,436,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $654,243,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$26,436,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes that 
approximately $25,000,000 in the budget request was for 
programs that would not have a direct impact on maintaining the 
field network of Federal employees. The Committee has included 
$15,000,000 in each of the last four fiscal years for the 
grazing lands conservation initiative and expects the agency to 
continue this funding level in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee does not concur with the budget request to 
transfer $31,050,000 from the Conservation Operations account 
to the Support Services Bureau.
    The Committee has included a limitation that allows 120,000 
additional acres to be enrolled in the wetlands reserve program 
instead of the 199,826 additional acres as the budget proposes; 
and a limitation on the funding level for the environmental 
quality incentives program (EQIP) of $174,000,000. The savings 
from these limitations are used to protect funding for the 
conservation operations account.
    The Committee has provided for the continuation of the 
following projects: $400,000 to promote pastureland management 
and rotational grazing in Central New York; $250,000 to 
establish best management practices to individual farmers to 
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of 
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds; 
$250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in 
the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $600,000 for the Great Lakes Basin 
Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment Control; $250,000 for 
technical assistance to the Westchester Soil and Conservation 
District for a partnership with the Environmental Protection 
Agency to address land use and water quality issues affecting 
the Long Island Sound; $250,000 for technical assistance for 
environmental restoration activities for Beaver Swamp Brook; 
$100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Iowa; $100,000 for 
the Potomac and Ohio River Basin soil nutrient project; and, 
fiscal year 1999 funding and staffing levels in support of 
Chesapeake Bay activities.
    The Committee is aware that the NRCS has implemented new 
accountability systems. The Committee encourages NRCS to use 
these systems to identify and document appropriate technical 
assistance levels for all conservation programs including the 
conservation reserve program, wetlands reserve program, and the 
EQIP.
    The Committee recognizes the long-term nature of the 
technical assistance work associated with EQIP contracts, and 
recommends that the technical assistance component be 
reimbursed for all costs associated with new and existing 
contracts.
    The Committee encourages the NRCS to allocate EQIP funds to 
the maximum extent possible to conduct voluntary on-farm 
assessments for the pork industry's On-Farm Odor/Environmental 
Assistance Program.
    The Committee expects the USDA to give consideration for 
utilizing financial or educational assistance under EQIP for 
pilot work to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of best 
management practices to assist livestock producers in the 
Bosque River watershed in Texas.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to give consideration to the 
Toledo Harbor Pilot Project to reduce sedimentation from 
agricultural run-off.

                     watershed surveys and planning

1999 appropriation....................................       $10,368,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        11,732,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,368,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................        -1,364,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $10,368,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $1,364,000 
below the budget request.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

1999 appropriation....................................       $99,443,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        83,423,000
Provided in the bill..................................        99,443,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................       +16,020,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $99,443,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase of 
$16,020,000 above the budget request. Language is included 
which limits the amount spent on technical assistance to not 
more than $47,000,000. The Committee expects more funding to be 
spent on completing ongoing projects and reducing the backlog 
of watershed projects.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following projects: the four pilot projects in North 
Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; the Chino 
Hills Dairy Preserve Project in San Bernardino, California; the 
Stillwater Creek Flood Project in Oklahoma; and the McCoy Wash 
Watershed Project in Blythe, California.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to provide financial 
assistance to the Salinas Valley Water Project in Monterey 
County, California.

                 resource conservation and development

1999 appropriation....................................       $35,000,000
2000 budget estimate..................................        35,265,000
Provided in the bill..................................        35,265,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +265,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          committee provisions

    For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $35,265,000, an increase of 
$265,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
the same as the budget request. The Committee expects the USDA 
to fund new RC&D areas.

                      forestry incentives program

1999 appropriation......................................  \1\ $6,325,000
2000 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      -6,325,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Does not reflect $10 million in emergency funding provided by Public 
Law 105-277.

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

                          committee provisions

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

                      farmland protection program

1999 appropriation....................................  ................
2000 budget estimate..................................   \1\ $50,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................  ................
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................       -50,000,000

\1\ The budget proposes funds to be derived from the Land and Water
  Conservation Fund.

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee has not included a proposal to transfer 
$50,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 
Farmland Protection Program.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

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

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

1999 appropriation......................................        $588,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         612,000
Provided in the bill....................................         588,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................         -24,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$588,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $24,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of extensive damage to the 
properties of borrowers participating in various rural 
development programs in Oklahoma and Kansas due to recent 
severe tornadoes. The Committee urges the Department to assist 
these borrowers wherever possible to recover from their losses.
    The Committee notes that the Department's detailed budget 
request documents backlogs of applications in a number of rural 
development programs. Many deserving and eligible applicants 
for rural development resources cannot be served because of 
budget shortfalls. The Committee directs the Department to use 
its resources only on programs that directly benefit applicants 
for rural development assistance.
    The Committee notes that an Office of Rural Development was 
created in the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) in fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs USDA to work 
with the new HUD office to avoid duplication of efforts and to 
refer qualified applicants for rural development assistance to 
HUD when appropriate.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and 
other rural development programs: assistance to a water and 
sewer project in Capitan, NM; a grant for the Agri-Edge 
Development Program in Syracuse, NY; capacity building for the 
State of New York; assistance to the Agribusiness Center in 
Bulloch County, GA; support for water and sewer systems in the 
communities of Reno Beach/Bono, Wauseon and Curtice, OH; a 
Rural Business Enterprise Grant for the Rural Opportunities 
Enterprise Center, Inc. to support projects in the Mid-Hudson 
Valley (New York) region; support for a Consolidated Rural 
Service Delivery System Demonstration Project in the State of 
New York; a grant to Florida A&M University to establish a 
rural development program at the University of Florida/IFAS 
North Florida Research and Education Center to serve as a focus 
for rural economic community development; continued support for 
the Renewable Resources Research Institute, which represents 
agriculture producers and cooperatives in South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Minnesota and Colorado to increase farmers' income 
through development and commercialization of value-added 
products; a grant to upgrade water lines as a result of 
increased poulty and livestock operations in the County of 
Lawrence (Alabama); assistance to Ninth District Development 
Financing, Inc. to promote tourism in southwest Virginia; 
funding for a new community health center in Haysi, VA; funds 
for purchase and repair of a building in Craig County, VA, for 
use as an industrial shell building; a rural business 
enterprise grant to create a regional industrial park for 
Bland, Giles, Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Roanoke and Wythe 
counties and the cities of Radford, Roanoke and Salem in 
Virginia; rural business enterprise grants for small business 
incubators in southwest Virginia; renovation of a commercial 
building in Bristol, VA, for use as a small business incubator; 
a Small Business Innovation Research Grant for renovation of an 
industrial shell building in Glen Lyn, VA; a project to provide 
water, including safe drinking water, to the Shinnecock Indian 
Tribe of Suffolk County, Long Island, NY; support for expansion 
of the Peconic Bay Aquaculture project in Suffolk County, NY; a 
rural business enterprise grant for the Allegheny Highlands 
(Virginia) Economic Development Authority for a high technology 
industrial park; support for the development of value-added 
processing and marketing capabilities for the Oregon Albacore 
tuna industry; the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, for rural, 
economic, and business development activities through a 
revolving loan fund; the City of Thomas, West Virginia, for the 
acquisition and renovation of facilities to support the Virtual 
County Store/Mountain Made project; funding for technical 
assistance provided by the National Drinking Water 
Clearinghouse at West Virginia University; funding for the 
North Carolina Institute of Health and Safety in Agriculture 
(``Agromedicine Institute'') for delivery of health services to 
farmers and farming communities; funding for development of 
agri-tourism projects in Vermont; a grant to Rural Enterprises, 
Inc. of Durant, OK, for an innovative tax exempt bond program 
for assistance to rural communities; a rural business 
enterprise grant for the Self-Help Credit Union (North 
Carolina) for assistance to low-income entrepreneurs; and 
funding for the Land Stewardship Alliance (Maryland) for a 
public outreach and education campaign to support and 
revitalize local agricultural communities; and grant assistance 
to Morgan County, TN for water line extensions and funds for a 
water reservoir feasibility study.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

                  rural community advancement program

1999 Appropriations.....................................    $722,686,000
2000 Budget estimate....................................     670,103,000
Provided in the bill....................................     666,103,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................     -56,583,000
    2000 budget estimate................................      -4,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

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

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1999      FY 2000     Committee
                                      level       estimate    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
    Community facility loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0            0
        Direct...................      $22,917      $15,150      $15,150
    Community facility grants....        6,869       13,237       19,237
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, housing......       29,786       28,387       34,387
                                  ======================================
Business:
    Business and industry loans:
        Guaranteed...............        9,673       31,100       15,000
        Direct...................            0            0            0
    Rural business enterprise           38,220       35,970       34,000
     grants......................
    Rural business opportunity               0        5,000        3,500
     grants......................
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, business.....       47,893       72,070       52,500
                                  ======================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal
     loans:
        Guaranteed...............            0            0            0
        Direct...................      129,430       63,900       63,900
    Water and waste disposal           512,761      503,000      512,570
     grants......................
    Solid waste management grants        2,816        2,746        2,746
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, utilities....      645,007      569,646      579,216
                                  ======================================
          Total, loans and grants     $722,686     $670,103     $666,103
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has provided bill language to allow state 
rural development directors to transfer up to 25 percent 
between funding streams as long as the transfers do not result 
in more than 10 percent transferred nationally.
    The Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Rural Business 
Opportunity Grant (RBOG) program. The Committee directs the 
Department to use its transfer authority under the RCAP to add 
additional funds for the RBOG program as needed. The Committee 
directs the Department to use RBOG funds for regional economic 
plan activities on behalf of local governments and their 
designees. Of the funds provided for the RBOG program, the 
Committee directs the Department to use $1,000,000 for 
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural 
Economic Area Partnerships.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to provide 
adequate technical service for centrally owned and managed 
cluster well systems. Therefore, the Committee supports the 
WellCare program, and recognizes needs that can be filled 
through the water and waste disposal loan and grant program.
    Of the funds provided under the RCAP for rural community 
programs, the Committee has set aside $6,000,000 for grants for 
a Rural Community Development Initiative. These funds are 
intended to increase capacity-building among non-profit and 
not-for-profit community development organizations. The 
Committee intends that, in awarding grants, the Department 
gives highest priority to those organizations that can directly 
provide assistance to rural America, particularly to the rural 
poor and to individuals and communities that do not currently 
benefit from USDA and other federal programs.
    The Committee further intends that funds should be made 
available to qualified national and multi-state intermediary 
organizations and that the Department require these 
organizations to provide matching funds.

                         Rural Housing Service

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

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

1999 loan level.......................................  ($4,251,717,000)
2000 budget estimate..................................   (4,575,052,000)
Provided in the bill..................................   (4,832,687,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level...................................    (+580,970,000)
    2000 budget estimate..............................    (+257,635,000)

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural 
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair or 
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are 
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans 
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans, are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor 
housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a 
public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest 
living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor. 
Loan programs are limited to rural areas which include towns, 
villages, and other places of not more than 10,000 population, 
which are not part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in 
areas with a population in excess of 10,000, but less than 
20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan 
statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for 
low- and moderate-income borrowers.

                          committee provisions

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 1999 level     FY 2000 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
    Low-income family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................         ($965,313)       ($1,100,000)       ($1,337,632)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................        (3,000,000)        (3,200,000)        (3,200,000)
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................          (114,321)          (100,000)          (120,000)
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................          (100,000)          (100,000)          (100,000)
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................           (25,001)           (32,396)           (32,400)
    Farm labor (sec. 514)..............................           (20,000)           (25,001)           (25,000)
    Credit sales of acquired property..................           (16,930)            (7,503)            (7,503)
    Site loans (sec. 524)..............................            (5,152)            (5,152)            (5,152)
    Self-help housing land development fund............            (5,000)            (5,000)            (5,000)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan authorization........................       ($4,251,717)       ($4,575,052)      ($4,832,687)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA changed the subsidary rule from 2.32% to 3.1% when interim regulations were published. The new rule
  will provide $74,839,000 in loans.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                            Direct loan      Guaranteed loan     Administrative
                                                              subsidy            subsidy            expenses

1999 appropriation.....................................       $192,265,000         $5,020,000       $360,785,000
2000 budget estimate...................................        155,877,000         20,000,000        383,879,000
Provided in the bill...................................        184,083,000         20,000,000        377,879,000
Comparison:
  1999 appropriation...................................         -8,182,000        +14,980,000        +17,094,000
  2000 budget estimate.................................        +29,000,000  .................         -6,000,000

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

                          committee provisions

    The Committee strongly urges the Rural Housing Service to 
continue participation in the leveraged loan program of New 
York and other states where alternative procedures are needed 
to meet the needs of affordable housing in rural areas.
    The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 1999 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by the Office of Management and Budget.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 1999 level     FY 2000 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................           $114,100            $93,830           $114,100
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................              2,700             19,520             19,520
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................              8,808              9,900              9,900
    Farm labor (sec. 514)..............................             10,406             11,308             11,308
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................             55,160             39,680             47,616
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................              2,320                480                480
    Credit sales of acquired property..................              3,492                874                874
    Housing site dev. (sec. 524).......................                 17                  4                  4
    Self-help housing land development fund............                282                281                281
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies............................           $197,285           $175,877           $204,083
RHIF expenses:
    Administrative expenses............................           $360,785           $383,879           $377,879
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       rental assistance program

1999 appropriation .....................................    $583,397,000
2000 budget estimate....................................     440,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     583,400,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................          +3,000
    2000 budget estimate................................    +143,400,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $583,400,000, an increase of $3,000 above the 
amount available in fiscal year 1999 and an increase of 
$143,400,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee notes that the Administration requested a 
significant cut in rental assistance for fiscal year 2000 with 
an additional $200,000,000 requested as advance appropriations 
for fiscal year 2001. According to Administration officials, 
this was done largely as an accounting device to divert fiscal 
year 2000 money from rural development to other programs. The 
Committee believes it is important to maintain the integrity of 
the rental assistance program and other rural development 
programs and directs the Administration to submit budget 
requests that reflect the reality of one-year appropriations 
bills.

                  mutual and self-help housing grants

1999 appropriation......................................     $26,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      30,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      28,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +2,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................      -2,000,000

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

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $28,000,000, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a 
decrease of $2,000,000 below the budget request.

                    rural housing assistance grants

1999 appropriation......................................     $41,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      54,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      50,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +9,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................      -4,000,000

    The following programs are consolidated under the Rural 
Housing Assistance Grants: grants for rural housing for 
domestic farm labor, very low-income housing repair grants, 
rural housing preservation grants, compensation for 
construction defects, and supervisory and technical assistance 
grants.
    Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor grants are provided 
to public or private nonprofit organizations or other eligible 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor.
    Under Section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural 
Housing Service is authorized to share with States or other 
political subdivisions, public or private nonprofit 
organizations, or nonprofit organizations of farm workers, the 
cost of providing low-rent housing, basic household 
furnishings, and related facilities to be used by domestic farm 
laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or seasonal 
occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or 
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and 
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials.
    The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is 
authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of 
1949, as amended. The program makes grants to very low-income 
families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to 
make such dwellings, safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to 
the health of the occupants, their families, or the community. 
A grant can be made in combination with a Section 504 very low-
income housing repair loan.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair 
for low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the 
preservation program is to improve the delivery of 
rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing 
organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will 
compete on a state-by-state basis for grants funds. These funds 
may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to 
finance home repair. The program is administered by local 
grantees.
    Compensation for Construction Defects provides funds for 
grants to eligible section 502 borrowers to correct structural 
defects, or to pay claims of owners arising from such defects 
on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial 
assistance.
    The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is 
carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of 
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants 
are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for 
packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502, 
504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
amended. The assistance is to be directed to underserved areas 
where at least 20 percent or more of the population is at or 
below the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the 
population resides in substandard housing. Under section 525, 
grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations 
and other associations for the developing, conducting, 
administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory 
assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal, 
State, and local housing programs for low-income families in 
rural areas.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $50,000,000, an increase 
of $9,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommends consideration of a pilot project 
in Salinas, CA, under the Rural Housing Assistance Grants 
Program, to provide home ownership for farm workers and workers 
involved in the processing of farm products.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                             Administrative
                                                                expenses          Transfers      Total expenses

1999 level................................................       $60,978,000    ($360,785,000)    ($421,763,000)
2000 budget estimate......................................        61,979,000     (383,879,000)     (445,858,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        61,979,000     (377,879,000)     (439,858,000)
Comparison:
    1999 level............................................        +1,001,000     (+17,094,000)     (+18,095,000)
    2000 budget estimate..................................  ................      (-6,000,000)      (-6,000,000)
                                                                   .........

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Housing Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $61,979,000, an increase 
of $1,001,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to ensure that 
personnel levels in the Rural Housing Service are sufficient to 
address customer needs and to make this first priority in the 
budgeting of the funds provided.

                   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

                          estimated loan level

1999 loan level.........................................   ($33,000,000)
2000 budget estimate....................................    (52,495,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (52,495,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level.....................................   (+19,495,000)
    2000 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $52,495,000, an increase 
of $19,495,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 1999 
and the same as the budget request.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

1999 appropriation..................       $16,615,000        $3,482,000
2000 budget estimate................        22,799,000         3,337,000
Provided in the bill................        22,799,000         3,337,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..............        +6,184,000          -145,000
    2000 budget estimates...........  ................  ................
                                                               .........

            rural economic development loans program account

                          estimated loan level

1999 loan level.........................................   ($15,000,000)
2000 budget estimate....................................    (15,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (15,000,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level..........................(.........................)
    2000 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $15,000,000, the 
same as provided for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee has provided language, requested by the 
Administration, to use earnings generated by the interest 
differential on voluntary cushion of credit payments made by 
Rural Utilities Service borrowers to provide necessary loan 
subsidies for rural economic development loans. By using these 
earnings for subsidy budget authority, additional loans funds 
will be available to rural communities. The discretionary cost 
of these loans is offset by reductions to rural economic 
development grants made from the cushion of credit.

                         estimated loan subsidy

                                                     Direct loan subsidy
1999 appropriation......................................  \1\ $3,783,000
2000 budget estimate....................................   \1\ 3,453,000
Provided in the bill....................................   \1\ 3,453,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................        -330,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                  rural cooperative development grants

1999 appropriation......................................      $3,300,000
2000 budget estimate....................................       9,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       6,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +2,700,000
    2000 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $6,000,000, an increase of 
$2,700,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a 
decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request. The total 
includes $1,500,000 for cooperative research grants.
    Of the funds provided, not to exceed $1,500,000 is provided 
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                                Transfer from
                                                              Appropriation     loan accounts    Total, RBS, S&E

1999 appropriation........................................       $25,680,000      ($3,482,000)     ($29,162,000)
2000 budget estimate......................................        24,612,000       (3,337,000)      (27,949,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        24,612,000       (3,337,000)      (27,949,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation....................................        -1,068,000          -145,000        -1,213,000
    2000 budget estimate..................................  ................  ................  ................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Development Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$24,612,000, a decrease of $1,068,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

1999 loan level.........................................($1,561,500,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (1,070,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (2,411,500,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level.....................................    +850,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................  +1,341,500,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee encourages the Administrator to fully utilize 
the discretionary authority provided in the Rural 
Electrification Act, as amended, when such use will facilitate 
mergers among Rural Utility Service borrowers and doing so will 
help to ensure the availability of long term, reliable and 
reasonably priced electricity in rural areas.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the rural 
electrification and telecommunications loan program account:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 1999 enacted  FY 2000 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification and telecommunications loans program
 account.
Loan authorizations:
    Direct loans:
        Electric 5%.......................................     ($71,500,000)     ($50,000,000)    ($121,500,000)
        Telecommunications 5%.............................      (75,000,000)      (50,000,000)      (75,000,000)
        Treasury rate: Telecommunications.................     (300,000,000)     (300,000,000)     (300,000,000)
        Muni-rate: Electric...............................     (295,000,000)     (250,000,000)     (295,000,000)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................     (741,500,000)     (650,000,000)     (791,500,000)
                                                           =====================================================
FFB loans:
        Electric, regular.................................     (700,000,000)     (300,000,000)   (1,500,000,000)
        Telecommunications................................     (120,000,000)     (120,000,000)     (120,000,000)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................................     (820,000,000)     (420,000,000)   (1,620,000,000)
                                                           =====================================================
          Total, Loan authorizations......................  ($1,561,500,000)  ($1,070,000,000)  ($2,411,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 1999 enacted  FY 2000 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
      Direct loans:
    Electric 5%...........................................        $9,324,000          $450,000        $1,095,000
    Telecommunications 5%.................................         7,343,000           560,000           840,000
        Treasury rate: Telecommunications.................           810,000         2,370,000         2,370,000
        Muni-rate: Electric...............................        25,842,000         9,175,000        10,827,000
        FFB loans: Regular Electric.......................                 0                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies...............................        43,319,000        12,555,000        15,132,000
                                                           =====================================================
RETLP administrative expenses.............................        29,982,000        31,046,000        31,046,000
      Total, Rural electrification and telecommunications         73,301,000        43,601,000        46,178,000
       loans program account..............................
(Loan authorization)......................................   (1,561,500,000)   (1,070,000,000)     2,411,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

1999 loan level.........................................  ($157,509,000)
2000 budget estimate....................................   (175,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................   (175,000,000)
Comparison:
    1999 loan level.....................................   (+17,491,000)
    2000 budget estimate.....................(.........................)

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a 
loan level of $175,000,000, an increase of $17,491,000 above 
the level for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal 
year 1999 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock 
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
    The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language 
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank 
Liquidating Account to pay for loan subsidies or administrative 
expenses of the Rural Telephone Bank.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

1999 appropriation..................        $4,174,000        $3,000,000
2000 budget estimate................             (\1\)             (\2\)
Provided in the bill................         3,290,000         3,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..............          -884,000  ................
    2000 budget estimate............  ................  ................

\1\ Up to $3,290,000 is to be derived by transfer from unobligated
  balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.
\2\ Up to $3,000,000 is to be derived from transfer from unobligated
  balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2000, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

                                                                   Loan level      Subsidy level      Grants

1999 appropriation............................................    ($150,000,000)        $180,000     $12,500,000
2000 budget estimate..........................................     (200,000,000)         700,000      20,000,000
Provided in the bill..........................................     (200,000,000)         700,000      16,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation........................................     (+50,000,000)        +520,000      +3,500,000
    2000 budget estimates.....................................  ................  ..............      -4,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $16,700,000, an increase 
of $4,020,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 
and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects or organizations requesting 
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program: a grant to Florida State University and the Harbor 
Branch Oceanographic Institution to utilize distance learning 
technologies in the field of marine aquaculture; continued 
funding for Daemen College, in Amherst, NY for a telemedicine 
project in four western New York counties; continued funding 
for the Community Hospital TeleHealth Consortium demonstration 
project to improve health services for medically underserved 
areas in Louisiana; funding for the Telecommunications Center 
for Education, an initiative of the University Colleges of 
Technology of the State University of New York to provide 
training and educational opportunities to develop a skilled 
workforce in rural communities.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

 alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund

                         cooperative agreements

1999 appropriation......................................      $3,500,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      -3,500,000
    2000 budget estimate................................     -10,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee does not provide funding for the Alternative 
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund for 
fiscal year 2000.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                                Transfer from
                                                              Appropriation     loan accounts    Total, RUS, S&E

1999 appropriation........................................       $33,000,000     ($32,982,000)     ($65,982,000)
2000 budget estimate......................................        34,107,000      (34,046,000)      (68,153,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        34,107,000      (34,046,000)      (68,153,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation....................................        +1,107,000        +1,064,000        +2,171,000
    2000 budget estimate..................................  ................  ................  ................

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, including reviewing 
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing 
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist 
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
    Under Credit Reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts for the 
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Fund and the 
Rural Telephone Bank fund. Appropriations to the salaries and 
expenses account will be for costs associated with grant 
programs.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Utilities Service, 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $34,107,000, an 
increase of $1,107,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1999 and the same as the budget request.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

1999 appropriation......................................        $554,000
2000 budget estimate....................................         576,000
Provided in the bill....................................         554,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................         -22,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services the Committee provides $554,000, the same 
amount as provided in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$22,000 below the budget request.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an 
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in 
this country. Nutrition assistance programs are intended to 
provide access to a nutritionally adequate diet for families 
and persons with low incomes, and encourage better eating 
patterns among the nation's children. These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--Federal assistance is provided 
to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and 
breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades 
or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers 
and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the special milk program, assistance is provided to the states 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program is aimed at making more 
effective use of the Nation's food supply and at improving 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most 
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used 
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also 
includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized 
a block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which 
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a 
nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to 
the needs of its low-income households.
    The program includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. The program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity 
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health 
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants, 
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by 
providing food packages designed to supplement each 
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking. 
Delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health 
clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other 
approved methods which a cooperating state health agency may 
select.
    The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides (WIC or WIC-
eligible) participants with coupons to purchase fresh, 
nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, 
from farmers markets. The program is designed to accomplish two 
major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers' 
markets by low-income households.
    The Commodity Assistance Program (CAP).--This program was 
created by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
(P.L. 104-37), by consolidating funding for the commodity 
supplemental food program (CSFP), the emergency food assistance 
program (TEFAP), and the soup kitchens and food banks program 
(SK/FB). Funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program is 
also included.
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding 
women with low incomes who reside in approved project areas. In 
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects 
directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to state agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.
    Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural 
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States 
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is 
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting 
administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use 
in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS 
administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all 
disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are 
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
    Food Program Administration.--This account represents most 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion (CNPP). As of September 30, 1998, there were 1,557 
full-time permanent and 107 part-time and temporary employees 
in the agency. There were 539 in the Washington headquarters 
and 1,025 in the field, which includes 820 in seven regional 
offices and the balance in six food stamp compliance offices; 
one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; one 
administrative review office; and 70 field offices. The Center 
oversees improvements in and revisions to the nutrition 
guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing and 
coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to 
improve the health of all Americans.
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply 
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of 
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of 
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide 
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from 
general and continued hunger.

                        child nutrition programs

                                                               Direct         Transfer from      Total program
                                                           appropriation        section 32           level

1999 appropriation.....................................     $4,128,747,000   ($5,048,150,000)   ($9,176,897,000)
2000 budget estimate...................................      4,635,768,000    (4,929,268,000)    (9,565,036,000)
Provided in the bill...................................      4,611,829,000    (4,935,199,000)    (9,547,028,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation.................................       +483,082,000     (-112,951,000)     (+370,131,000)
    2000 budget estimate...............................        -23,939,000       (+5,931,000)      (-18,008,000)

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 
total of $9,547,028,000, an increase of $370,131,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of 
$18,008,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $4,611,829,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$4,935,199,000 is by transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:
    School lunch program................................  $5,480,010,000
    School breakfast program............................   1,421,789,000
    Child and adult care food program...................   1,769,766,000
    Summer food service program.........................     314,946,000
    Special milk program................................      17,551,000
    State administrative expenses.......................     120,104,000
    Commodity procurement and computer support..........     406,499,000
    School meals initiative.............................      10,000,000
    Food safety education...............................       2,000,000
    Coordinated review effort...........................       4,363,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................  $9,547,028,000

    The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the School Meals 
Initiative. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food 
service training grants to states; $1,600,000 for technical 
assistance materials; $800,000 for the National Food Service 
Management Institute cooperative agreement for food service; 
$400,000 for print and electronic food service resource 
systems; and $3,200,000 for other activities.
    The Committee does not recommend funding for the school 
breakfast pilot project. Even though the Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 was enacted over seven months ago, 
the USDA testified that there is no plan in place for selecting 
the six pilot sites. The Committee is concerned that the pilot 
project, as authorized, would spend nearly 77 percent of the 
funds ($10,000,000 out of $13,000,000) on evaluations.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

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

1999 appropriation......................................  $3,924,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................   4,105,495,000
Provided in the bill....................................   4,005,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................     +81,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................    -100,495,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,005,000,000, an increase of $81,000,000 
above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease 
of $100,495,000 below the budget request.
    The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request estimated 
the amount of carryover funds from fiscal year 1998 to be $100 
million. The President's fiscal year 2000 request increased the 
amount of carryover funds to $155 million. The latest estimate 
by the Department indicates that the final amount of carryover 
funds into fiscal year 1999 will be $175 million.
    The President's fiscal year 2000 request includes projected 
carryover funds of $100 million from fiscal year 1999. However, 
the latest estimate indicates that carryover funds will be at 
least $125 million. The Committee believes that the funding 
level recommended in this account provides adequate resources 
to maintain a monthly participation level of at least 7.4 
million pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and 
infants and children up to age five. The Committee notes that 
the participation level through the first five months of fiscal 
year 1999 has averaged 7.33 million per month.
    The Committee maintains language regarding the Farmers 
Market Nutrition Program that makes the first $10 million 
available for that program within 45 days of the enactment of 
this Act with the balance becoming available upon the 
determination that funds are not needed to maintain caseload.
    The Committee is concerned that when our Nation's military 
personnel are transferred to overseas posts they are no longer 
eligible for WIC benefits. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a solution to this problem.
    The WIC program generates revenue through the use of infant 
formula rebates. However, the Committee is concerned that since 
rebates began, infant formula costs appear to have risen far 
greater than inflation, and the number of suppliers has 
declined dramatically.
    The Committee notes that by law $10 million of WIC 
carryover funds from one fiscal year into the next fiscal year 
must be used to improve WIC financial management systems. The 
Committee encourages the USDA to work with the New York WIC 
Statewide Information Systems as they undergo a comprehensive 
reeningeering of their WIC program.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

                           food stamp program

1999 appropriation\1\................................... $22,585,106,000
2000 budget estimate....................................  27,284,444,000
Provided in the bill....................................  21,577,444,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................  -1,007,662,000
    2000 budget estimate................................  -5,707,000,000

\1\ Reflects additional funding of $500,000 apportioned pursuant to P.L. 
105-379 for a study for a national database for Federal means-tested 
public assistance programs.

    The food stamp program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service 
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which 
are updated annually.
    Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for 
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or 
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal 
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained 
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the 
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 
By the end of fiscal year 1998, twenty-seven systems (Alabama, 
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 
Hawaii, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennyslvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont) and the District of 
Columbia are statewide and eight systems (California, Georgia, 
Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and 
Wyoming) are in some stage of planning or implementing their 
EBT systems.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.

                          administrative costs

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 
$21,577,444,000, a decrease of $1,007,662,000 below the amount 
available in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $5,707,000,000 
below the budget request. The total amount includes 
$100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2000; 
$1,268,000,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and 
$100,000,000 for the emergency food assistance program.
    The Committee recommends no advance appropriation for 
fiscal year 2001, a decrease of $4,800,000,000 below the budget 
request. The Committee does not concur with the budget request 
for a $1,000,000,000 reserve for the food stamp program, but 
provides $100,000,000 the same amount as fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
    The Committee is encouraged by the implementation of EBT 
systems around the country and supports the goal that all 
states must be operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee, no later than 
120 days after enactment of this Act, on efforts by the Food 
and Nutrition Service to ensure that all states will be 
operating an EBT system by 2002.
    The Committee believes the agency should focus more on 
preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food 
stamps. Two years ago, the Committee urged the Food and 
Nutrition Service, FNS, to require preauthorization visits for 
all high risk stores. The Committee is disappointed that more 
preauthorization visits have not been required and directs the 
agency to work with its field offices to ensure that all new 
high risk retailer applicants are visited before they are 
authorized to participate in the program.
    The Committee also agrees with a previous Inspector General 
recommendation that the National office needs to provide more 
direction and oversight to regional and field offices and that 
half of all field offices should be reviewed each year. FNS 
established new oversight procedures as a result of an OIG 1992 
retailer audit, but does not enforce them.

                     Commodity Assistance Programs

1999 appropriation......................................    $131,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 155,215,000
Provided in the bill....................................     141,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................     +10,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................     -14,215,000

\1\ Includes funding for TEFAP, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and 
the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.

    The Commodity and the Assistance Program was established in 
fiscal year 1996 by the Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 
104-37). The Commodity Assistance Program includes: the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and administrative 
expenses of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The commodity 
supplemental food program (CSFP) provides supplemental food to 
infants and children up to age six, and to pregnant, 
postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low incomes, and 
reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program 
operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income 
elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized the commodity 
supplemental food program through fiscal year 2002. In 
addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4 million pounds of 
nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese to the program 
annually, subject to availability.
    TEFAP provides grant funds to state agencies to assist in 
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for 
needy individuals.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $141,000,000 for 
the commodity assistance program, an increase of $10,000,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease 
of $14,215,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program was reduced by 
$10,000,000 due to a 1998 carryover in the program. The 
Committee has included $96,000,000 in order to maintain the 
caseload and state administrative expense level available in 
fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee has included $45,000,000 for administration 
of the emergency food assistance program. These funds may be 
used for administration purposes or for food costs at the 
discretion of the states.
    The Committee does not concur with the budget request to 
fund the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in this account.

                        food donations programs

1999 appropriation......................................    $141,081,000
2000 budget estimate....................................     151,081,000
Provided in the bill....................................     141,081,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................     -10,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $141,081,000, the same amount as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of $10,000,000 
below the budget request. Included in this amount is 
$140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the elderly.
    The budget request included an increase of $10,000,000 for 
the nutrition program for the elderly. However, an increase in 
the USDA portion of this program will not allow more meals to 
be served. Funding for the operation of the program, also known 
as Meals on Wheels, is contained in the Labor-HHS 
appropriations

bill. USDA provides a cash reimbursement for each meal served. 
Increasing funding for the program will not increase 
participation in the program. It will only increase the per 
meal reimbursement rate by 4 cents. The elderly feeding program 
has not been authorized since 1995, but the Committee continues 
to fund this program.

                      food program administration

1999 appropriation\1\...................................    $108,561,000
2000 budget estimate....................................     119,841,000
Provided in the bill....................................     108,561,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................................
    2000 budget estimate................................     -11,280,000

\1\ Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of 
$2,000,000 (P.L. 105-277) for studies and evaluations.

    The food program administration appropriation provides for 
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Nutrition Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; 
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
children (WIC); the commodity assistance program, including the 
commodity supplemental food program, and administrative 
expenses of the emergency food assistance program; the Food 
Donations Programs, including the nutrition program for the 
elderly, Pacific Island Assistance, the Food Stamp Program and 
the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance 
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the 
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to state agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the states and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program 
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support 
functions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided 
$108,561,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1999, and a decrease of $11,280,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has maintained all funding for studies and 
evaluations under the Economic Research Service's Food and 
Consumer Economics Division. The Committee does not reduce the 
funding available for studies and evaluations. Full discretion 
on how these funds are to be spent has been left to the 
Department. The Committee continues to believe that 
consolidating these funds under ERS is prudent and fiscally 
responsible. It is expected that FNS staff, as well as staff 
from other agencies, will provide input and continue to work 
with ERS staff to assure that all program and policy needs of 
the Department are being met.
    The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to 
acquire commodities from local farmer's markets and 
cooperatives for nutrition programs to the maximum extent 
possible.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

                                                                                 Transfer from
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS

1999 appropriation............................................    $136,203,000    ($4,266,000)    ($140,469,000)
2000 budget estimate..........................................     137,768,000     (4,506,000)     (142,274,000)
Provided in the bill..........................................     137,768,000     (4,506,000)     (142,274,000)
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation........................................      +1,565,000      (+240,000)      (+1,805,000)
    2000 budget estimate......................................  ..............  (.............  (...............
                                                                                        .....)              ...)

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $137,768,000 and transfers of 
$4,746,000 for a total program level of $142,274,000, an 
increase of $1,805,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1999 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee directs that any programs or operations 
administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and funded 
through the Commodity Credit Corporation maintain that status 
in fiscal year 2000. No discretionary funds are provided to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service to convert CCC-funded programs to 
discretionary funding.
    The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service 
to focus more of its training and technical assistance 
resources on cross border programs that share successful 
agricultural development efforts in the countries of the former 
Soviet Union.
    The Committee commends the Foreign Agricultural Service 
(FAS) for its recent efforts to ensure fair representation for 
all rice producers and all types of rice in the Foreign Market 
Development (FMD) program. The Committee expects the Department 
to continue to provide fair and equal treatment to rice 
producers in every state in managing the FMD and other export-
related programs.
    The Committee expects that no appropriated funds will be 
used to pay for travel and other expenses of non-U.S. 
Government employees participating in the Reverse Trade Mission 
Program.
    The Committee expects the Department to allocate all 
resources necessary to advance the interests of American 
farmers, ranchers and consumers in the next round of trade 
negotiations under the framework of the World Trade 
Organization. This includes reallocation of current spending, 
if necessary.
    The Committee notes that the Department has proposed 
funding the Foreign Market Development/Cooperator Program from 
the CCC instead of from appropriated funds. The Committee 
directs the Department to notify the Committees on 
Appropriations before making this change.

                             Public Law 480

                       program and grant accounts

                 public law 480 title I program account

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

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FY 1999 enacted                          Committee
                                                                \1\          FY 2000 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
    Title I--Credit sales:
        Program level..................................     ($219,724,000)     ($150,324,000)     ($214,582,000)
        Direct loans...................................      (203,475,000)      (138,324,000)      (200,582,000)
        Ocean freight differential.....................        16,249,000         12,000,000         14,000,000
        Loan subsidies.................................    \2\176,596,000        114,062,000        165,400,000
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level..................................      (837,000,000)      (787,000,000)      (837,000,000)
        Appropriation..................................       837,000,000        787,000,000        837,000,000
    Title III--Commodity grants:
        Program level..................................       (25,000,000)                (0)  .................
        Appropriation..................................        25,000,000                  0   .................
    Salaries and expenses:
        General Sales Manager..........................         1,035,000          1,093,000          1,093,000
        FSA............................................           815,000            845,000            845,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.....................................         1,850,000          1,938,000          1,938,000

          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level............................    (1,081,724,000)      (937,324,000)    (1,051,582,000)
              Appropriation............................     1,056,695,000        915,000,000      1,018,338,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes credit level of $760,205,541, subsidy of $635,620,285, and administrative expenses of $2,000,000,
  associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit
  Corporation.
\2\ Excludes rescission of $30,000,000 proposed by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March 24, 1999.

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

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                        administrative expenses

1999 appropriation....................................        $3,820,000
2000 budget estimate..................................         4,085,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,085,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation................................          +265,000
    2000 budget estimate..............................  ................

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

                          committee provisions

    For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $4,085,000, an increase of 
$265,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
the same as the budget request.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

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

1999 appropriation.......................................      $970,867,000      $132,273,000     $1,103,140,000
2000 budget estimate.....................................     1,109,950,000       145,434,000      1,255,384,000
Provided in the bill.....................................     1,072,950,000       145,434,000  \1\ 1,218,384,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation...................................      +102,083,000       +13,161,000       +115,244,000
    2000 budget estimate.................................       -37,000,000  ................       -37,000,000

\1\ Excludes amounts for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), at $14,817,000; Export Certification at
  $1,030,000; Freedom of Information at $1,061,000; and Certification Fund at $3,877,000.

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee 
provides a total direct appropriation of $1,072,950,000 for 
salaries and expenses, and makes available an additional 
$145,434,000 in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User 
Fee Act, for a total of $1,218,384,000. This is an increase of 
$115,244,000 above the total amount available in fiscal year 
1999 and a decrease of $37,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommends full funding of the budget 
request, with the exception of increases requested for seafood 
inspection and for tobacco.
    Docket No. 95N-0304 (Ephedra).--The Committee directs that 
the agency shall not proceed with 62 Federal Register (June 4, 
1997) Docket No. 95N-0304 without using sound science to assure 
strict compliance with the Dietary Supplement Health and 
Education Act, and use of adverse event reports in a manner 
consistent with previous rulemakings and agency policy. The 
Committee directs the agency to report to the Committee no 
later than 180 days after enactment the methodology used to 
determine compliance.
    Generic Drugs.--Health care costs continue to represent a 
significant burden to federal health care programs and the 
American consumer. Over the next five years approximately $22 
billion in sales of brand name drugs will come off patent. 
Millions in savings can occur through the use of generic drug 
alternatives. The FDA will be able to help provide these 
significant cost savings only if it has adequate resources to 
review and approve generic drug applications in a timely 
manner. FDA's average approval time is still three times longer 
than the six-month statutory requirement. Therefore, the 
Committee strongly supports the budget request increase of $1.9 
million for the Office of Generic Drugs. These funds will be 
used to increase staffing levels by not less than 11 FTE's.
    Imported Food.--The Committee is concerned about a report 
issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in April 1998 
evaluating the current regulatory system for imported foods. 
That report identified substantial deficiencies in the 
coordination between FDA and the U.S. Customs Service. The 
Committee directs FDA to report by March 1, 2000 on activities 
undertaken to improve coordination and cooperation with Customs 
and in the inspection and regulation of imported foods, 
including a timetable for implementation.
    Seafood Inspection.--The appropriations request included 
detailed authorization language which would transfer seafood 
inspection activities from the National Marine Fisheries 
Service to the Food and Drug Administration. In addition to the 
transfer of funds and personnel, the budget request for the 
Food and Drug Administration includes an increase of $3,000,000 
related to this transfer. The Committee feels strongly that 
this is a matter to be addressed by the authorization 
committee, and therefore has not included the requested 
authorization language, and has not provided the related 
$3,000,000.
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--Within 
funds provided for Food Safety activities, the Committee 
provides a total of $3,000,000 for the National Center for Food 
Safety and Technology.
    Tobacco.--On April 26, 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to 
review a decision by a federal appeals court holding that the 
Food and Drug Administration has no authority to regulate 
tobacco products. Pending the Supreme Court's review, the 
Committee recommends maintaining the program at the fiscal year 
1999 level of $34,000,000, and has not approved the budget 
request for an additional $34,000,000 to double the 
appropriation for this activity.
    The Committee requires that FDA provide a report, 90 days 
after the enactment of this bill, on the effects of reducing 
illegal tobacco sales to minors and the effect on compliance, 
through use of automated identification systems, such as those 
found on drivers licenses and other identification cards. This 
report should, at a minimum, include the following information: 
the cost of imposing such a requirement on retailers, both 
large and small; if such a system would work in all states; and 
if there are ways to circumvent the machines and reduce their 
effectiveness.
    The Committee requires FDA to explore the possibility of 
providing retailers with ``on the spot'' results of compliance 
checks to assist retailers in responding appropriately to 
violations. While the majority of letters are sent to retailers 
following compliance checks within two weeks, it would be more 
beneficial if such notice were provided even more quickly. FDA 
should develop a pilot program to test out this concept, while 
ensuring the safety of the minor who is involved in the 
attempted purchase and not allowing clerks to notify other 
retailers in the same area that FDA is doing compliance checks. 
FDA should keep the Committee informed about this program.
    Recommendations by activity.--The Committee recommends that 
of the total amount provided: (1) $265,955,000 shall be for the 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) 
$316,760,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research and related field activities in the Office of 
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $138,114,000 shall be for the Center 
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field 
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $52,473,000 
shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related 
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) 
$164,411,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health and for related field activities in the 
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $33,679,000 shall be for the 
National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) $34,000,000 
shall be for the Office of Tobacco; (8) $25,855,000 shall be 
for Rent and Related activities, other than the amounts paid to 
the General Services Administration; (9) $100,180,000 shall be 
for payments to the General Services Administration for rent 
and related costs; and (10) $86,957,000 shall be for other 
activities, including the Office of the Commissioner, the 
Office of Policy, the Office of External Affairs, the Office of 
Operations, the Office of Management and Systems, and central 
services for these offices. Funds may be transferred from one 
specified activity to another with the prior approval of the 
Committee.
    Waste-management Education and Research Consortium.--Within 
sums provided for food safety, the Committee directs the Food 
and Drug Administration to provide $100,000 for the Waste-
management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) to assist 
in minimizing microbial hazards. Based on the model for its 
environmental design contest, WERC will conduct a design 
contest for students, faculty, and industry to find innovative 
solutions to ground water treatment and use in produce.
    Antibiotic Resistance in Livestock.--A General Accounting 
Office report to Congress in April 1999 reflects the difference 
of opinion between USDA and HHS about the potential risks 
associated with the use of human antibiotics in animals and to 
what extent on-farm antibiotic use contributes to resistance. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and Health and Human Services to implement the GAO 
report's recommendation and develop a joint strategy for 
addressing resistance. The USDA and the FDA are directed to 
report to Congress by January 2000 on that strategy, which 
should include a proposed timetable and budget for conducting a 
comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the risk to human 
health posed by on-farm antibiotic use. For food-borne 
pathogens, the assessment should compare the level of risk 
posed by other uses to the risk posed by on-farm antibiotic 
use. The report should also detail how the results of the risk 
assessment will be incorporated into regulations governing the 
approval and use of on-farm antibiotics.
    Human-Use Antibiotics Used in Livestock Production.--The 
Committee is concerned about the potential human health risks 
associated with the use of human medicines, such as antibiotics 
in livestock production, including the development of 
antibiotic resistance in foodborne and other bacteria. In a 
July 1998 report prepared for the USDA and the FDA, the 
National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``there is a link 
between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development 
of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease'' but 
that ``information gaps hinder the decision-making and policy 
process for regulatory approval and antibiotic use in food 
animals.'' Accordingly, the Committee directs the FDA to report 
to the Committee by January 2000 on human health risks 
associated with the uses of approved antibiotics in animals in 
the United States and on the status of FDA's development of 
regulations on data submission requirements for entry in an 
electronic data base on the use of antibiotics in animals that 
may compromise human therapies in the United States. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs the USDA to submit a report 
on the status of its research on the effectiveness of the use 
of growth promoting antibiotics in animals that may compromise 
human therapies and on alternatives to this practice.
    Premarket Notification Program.--The Committee recognizes 
FDA's efforts in improving its premarket review process for 
food additive petitions. However, much more needs to be done. 
Implementation of the food contact substances Premarket 
Notification (PMN) program, as authorized by the FDA 
Modernization Act, is one way to achieve substantial 
improvement. The Committee encourages FDA to continue 
development of the PMN program. The President's Budget Request 
included a proposal to fund the PMN program through additive 
user fees. The Committee supports enactment of such authorizing 
legislation, and requests that the Administration submit this 
proposed legislation to Congress and begin negotiations with 
the affected industry on the specifics of the legislation. The 
goal of these activities should be for implementation of this 
program in fiscal year 2000.

                        buildings and facilities

1999 appropriation......................................     $11,350,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      31,750,000
Provided in the bill....................................      31,750,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................     +20,400,000
    2000 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$31,750,000, an increase of $20,400,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Arkansas Regional Laboratory.--The Committee approves the 
full amount of the budget request of $3,000,000 which will go 
towards a portion of the third and final phase of the overall 
Arkansas Regional Laboratory project at Jefferson, Arkansas. 
This phase will provide for the renovation of the existing 
Building 50 in its entirety for joint Office of Regulatory 
Affairs and National Center for Toxicological Research 
administrative support space and the restoration of the 
laboratory project site.

                          Independent Agencies

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1999 appropriation...................................... \1\ $61,000,000
2000 budget estimate....................................      67,655,000
Provided in the bill....................................      65,000,000
Comparison:
    1999 appropriation..................................      +4,000,000
    2000 budget estimate................................      -2,655,000

\1\ Does not include $356,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for Year 
2000 compliance.

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers 
the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of 
the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures 
and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring 
their integrity, and protecting participants against abusive 
trade practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable 
the markets to better serve their designated function in 
providing a price discovery mechanism and as a means of 
offsetting price risk. In properly serving these functions, the 
futures markets contribute toward better planning, more 
efficient distribution and consumption, and more economical 
marketing.

                          committee provisions

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $65,000,000, an increase of 
$4,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and 
a decrease of $2,655,000 below the budget request.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

1999 limitation.......................................     ($35,800,000)
2000 budget estimate..................................             (\1\)
Provided in the bill..................................      (35,800,000)
Comparison:
    1999 limitation...................................  ................
    2000 budget estimate..............................    (+35,800,000)

\1\ The Farm Credit Administration submitted a budget of $35,800,000 for
  fiscal year 2000.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $35,800,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1999.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill 
for fiscal year 2000 are fundamentally the same as those 
included in last year's appropriations bill.
    Section 713. Language is included to provide that subsidy 
authority for certain housing loan programs remains available 
until expended to cover obligations made in certain fiscal 
years.
    Section 725. Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural 
America.
    Section 726. Language is included to limit the amount of 
funds available for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program to $174,000,000.
    Section 728. Language is included to limit enrollment of 
acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 120,000 acres.
    Section 729. Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
    Section 730. This provision restores the eligibility of 
certain communities for rural development programs pending 
revision of population and other criteria.
    Section 731. Language is included that funds in this Act 
shall not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program 
that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-
owned cooperatives.
    Section 732. Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.
    Section 736. Language is included that limits funds for the 
emergency food assistance program and appropriates funds for 
Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
    Section 737. Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

                    Transfer of Unexpended Balances

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the 
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are 
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
by clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII.
    1. Office of the Secretary.--The bill allows the transfer 
of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to the Office of the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental 
payments account based on changing space requirements.
    3. Hazardous Waste Management.--The bill allows the funds 
appropriated to the Department for hazardous waste management 
to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required.
    4. Departmental Administration.--The bill allows 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill requires a portion of the funds 
appropriated to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be 
transferred to agencies.
    6. Office of the Inspector General.--Authority is provided 
to transfer funds to the Office of the Inspector General from 
the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the 
Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
    7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    9. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds 
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the 
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
    10. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    11. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm 
Service Agency salaries and expenses account.
    12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; Rural 
Development Loan Program Account; and Rural Electrification and 
Telecommunications Loan Program Account.--The bill provides 
that administrative funds may be transferred to various 
salaries and expenses accounts.
    13. Rural Housing Assistance Program; Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program; and Rural Utilities Assistance 
Program.--The bill allows funds to be transferred between 
authorized programs within the account.
    14. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    15. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    16. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export 
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
    17. Public Law 480.--The bill allows for the transfer of up 
to 15 percent of the funds among titles I, II, and III.
    18. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses 
associated with credit reform.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law. In most instances, these 
provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, 
often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of 
the responsible legislative committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--Language is included which allows the transfer of 
limited amounts to and from this account.
    3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    4. Inspector General.--Language is included to allow the 
Inspector General to use funds transferred through forfeiture 
proceedings for authorized law enforcement activities.
    5. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes 
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out 
research related to the production, processing or marketing of 
tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included that allows 
the Agricultural Research Service to grant an easement at the 
Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is 
included that authorizes the Agricultural Research Service to 
charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special 
use authorization for the occupancy or use of land and 
facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be credited 
to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until 
expended.
    6. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out research related to the production, 
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
    7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing training to non-APHIS personnel.
    8. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority 
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows for flexibility if export activities require 
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable 
factors occur.
    9. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    10. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    11. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included that 
allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
payments.
    12. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which 
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and 
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
    13. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    14. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation 
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill 
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not 
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by 
states and counties is authorized by basic law. This paragraph 
also includes language carried in the bill since 1950, which 
prohibits the use of funds for demonstration projects 
authorized by the Act of April 27, 1935.
    15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language, 
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill and all 
bills since 1984, provides that funds may be used for 
rehabilitation of existing works.
    16. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during fiscal year 2000 be funded for a five-year period.
    17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
Program Account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for electric loans to exceed seven percent.
    18. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of 
credit payments to this account.
    19. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    20. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    21. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    22. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received 
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities 
involving international development and technical cooperation.
    The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being 
used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    23. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from 
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
    24. General Provisions.--
          Section 704: This provision repeats language carried 
        since 1972 which permits the accumulation of growth 
        capital not to exceed $2,000,000, and which provides 
        that no funds appropriated to an agency shall be 
        transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
        approval of the agency administrator.
          Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is 
        again included which provides that certain 
        appropriations in this Act shall remain available until 
        expended where the programs or projects involved are 
        continuing in nature under the provisions of 
        authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation 
        does not specifically provide for extended 
        availability. This authority tends to result in savings 
        by preventing the wasteful practice often found in 
        government of rushing to commit funds at the end of the 
        fiscal year without due regard to the value of the 
        purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended 
        availability is also essential in view of the long lead 
        time frequently required to negotiate agreements or 
        contracts which normally extend over a period of more 
        than one year. Under these conditions such authority is 
        commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted 
        from basic law. These provisions have been carried 
        through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient 
        and effective program execution and to assure maximum 
        savings. They involve the following items: Animal and 
        Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund 
        to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the 
        reserve fund for integrated systems acquisition 
        project, the boll weevil program, and up to 10 percent 
        of the screwworm program; Food Safety and Inspection 
        Service, field automation and information management 
        project; Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
        Extension Service, funds for the Native American 
        institutions endowment fund and competitive research 
        grants; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
        country training program; Farm Service Agency, salaries 
        and expenses to county committees; National 
        Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture; 
        and funds appropriated for rental payments.
          Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal 
        year 1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on 
        cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This 
        provision is necessary because many universities 
        attempted to apply the same overhead rates to 
        cooperative agreements as was being applied to grants 
        and contracts, without giving consideration to the 
        cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead 
        charges.
          Section 710: This provision, added in 1987, provides 
        that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
        restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This 
        provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a 
        lower cost than space leased by GSA.
          Section 711: This provision provides that none of the 
        funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect 
        costs charged against agricultural research, education, 
        or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State 
        Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of 
        19 percent of total direct costs, except for grants 
        available under the Small Business Innovation and 
        Development Act.
          Section 712: This provision clarifies that loan 
        levels provided in the Act are to be considered 
        estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit 
        Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated 
        subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of 
        loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest 
        rates change, the amount of loan authority will 
        fluctuate.
          Section 713: This provision provides that subsidy 
        authority for certain housing loan programs remains 
        available until expended to cover obligations made in 
        certain fiscal years.
          Section 714: This provision allows funds made 
        available in fiscal year 2000 for the Rural Development 
        Loan Fund Program Account; Rural Telephone Bank Program 
        Account; the Rural Electrification and 
        Telecommunications Loans Program Account; and the Rural 
        Housing Insurance Fund Program Account to remain 
        available until expended. The Credit Reform Act 
        requires that the lifetime costs of loans be 
        appropriated. Current law requires that funds 
        unobligated after five years expire. The life of some 
        loans extends well beyond the five- year period and 
        this provision allows funds appropriated to remain 
        available until the loans are closed out.
          Section 715: This provision provides that sums 
        necessary for fiscal year 2000 pay raises shall be 
        absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
          Section 716: This provision provides that the 
        Agricultural Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration; and the Animal 
        and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food 
        safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection 
        Service may use cooperative agreements.
          Section 717: This provision provides that the Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative 
        agreements.
          Section 718: Provides that not more than 5 percent of 
        Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be 
        retired in fiscal year 2000. The provision also 
        prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount 
        which has not been specifically authorized by law. The 
        provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated 
        funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating 
        account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank 
        that are in excess of current requirements.
          Section 719: Provides that of the funds made 
        available, not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to 
        cover expenses of activities related to all advisory 
        committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
        Department of Agriculture except for panels used to 
        comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to 
        evaluate competitive award grants.
          Section 720: Provides that none of the funds may be 
        used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of 
        Public Law 104-127, the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
        and Reform Act.
          Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of 
        the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or 
        assigned to any other agency or office of the 
        Department for more than 30 days unless the 
        individual's employing agency or office is fully 
        reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
        salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
        assignment.
          Section 722: This provision prohibits the Department 
        of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to 
        any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or 
        responses to questions that are a result of information 
        requested for the appropriations hearing process.
          Section 723: Language is included that requires 
        approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
        concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
        Investment Review Board for acquisition of new 
        information technology systems or significant upgrades.
          Section 724: Language is included that requires 
        certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in 
        Appropriations Acts.
          Section 725: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out programs under the Fund 
        for Rural America.
          Section 726: Language is included to limit the amount 
        of funds available for the Environmental Quality 
        Incentives Program to $174,000,000.
          Section 727: Language is included to prohibit 
        contract acreage payments to a producer who plants wild 
        rice on contract acreage unless the contract payment is 
        reduced by an acre for each acre planted to wild rice.
          Section 728: Language is included to limit enrollment 
        of acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 120,000 
        acres.
          Section 729: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future 
        Agriculture and Food Systems.
          Section 730: Language is included that defines rural 
        areas for certain business programs that were in place 
        prior to the enactment of P.L. 104-127.
          Section 731. Language is included that funds in this 
        Act shall not be used to carry out any commodity 
        purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or 
        participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
          Section 732. Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to carry out the Conservation 
        Farm Option program.
          Section 733: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to 
        Congress that assumes reductions from the previous 
        year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the 
        submission also identifies spending reductions which 
        should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
          Section 734: Language is included that prohibits the 
        establishment of the Office of Community Food Security 
        or any similar office without the prior approval of the 
        Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
        Congress.
          Section 735: Language is included that prohibits the 
        use of the funds made available by this Act or any 
        other Act for the National Swine Research Center.
          Section 736: This provision limits the amount of 
        funds available for the emergency food assistance 
        program and provides $1,000,000 for a fellowship 
        program on hunger.
          Section 737: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds made available by this Act to issue rules, 
        regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of 
        implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

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

                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:

          Dairy Indemnity Program
          Elderly Feeding Program
          Emerson-Leland Hunger Fellowships

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:
    The bill proposes no rescissions.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     302(b) allocation           This bill
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                       Full committee data                          Budget                  Budget
                                                                   authority    Outlays    authority    Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary...............................................      13,988      14,542      13,988      14,542
    Mandatory...................................................      50,295      33,088      47,076      32,467
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      64,283      47,630      61,064      47,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

                         [Five year projections]

Budget Authority......................................            61,064
Outlays:
    2000..............................................            47,009
    2001..............................................             4,253
    2002..............................................               593
    2003..............................................               329
    2004 and beyond...................................               457

    The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and 
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, 
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan 
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available 
under existing law for fiscal year 2000 and beyond.

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

                        [In millions of dollars]

New budget authority..................................            18,230
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom..........            15,527

                     Program, Project, and Activity

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

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: May 19, 1999.
    Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To provide $94,377,000 of emergency 
appropriations for the direct cost of direct and guaranteed 
loans in the amount of $1,511,330,000 for farm ownership loans, 
operating loans, and emergency loans.
    Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 30 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bond                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey                            Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Packard
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Peterson
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Price                           Mr. Rogers
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: May 19, 1999.
    Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
    Motion by: Mr. Nethercutt.
    Description of motion: To prohibit the President from 
restricting exports to any country of food, other agricultural 
products, medicines, or medical supplies or equipment unless 
the President waives this prohibition for national security 
reasons.
    Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 28 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Boyd
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham                      Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Dickey                          Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Istook                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Kolbe                           Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Latham                          Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Lewis
Mr. Olver                           Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Peterson                        Mr. Mollohan
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Obey
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Sununu                          Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Tiahrt                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Price
Mr. Walsh                           Mr. Regula
Mr. Wamp                            Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 3

    Date: May 19, 1999.
    Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of motion: To provide $500,000,000 of emergency 
appropriations for use in the program authorized by section 32 
of the Act of August 24, 1935, for strengthening Markets, 
Income and Supply.
    Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 28 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Porter
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Price                           Mr. Rogers
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Sununu
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    A series of economic disasters are taking place throughout 
farm country. At some point--and better sooner than later--
Congress must come to grips with this crisis and fashion 
appropriate remedies. While this bill makes a reasonable effort 
to apportion the scarce resources available to the Agriculture 
Subcommittee, it makes little contribution to addressing the 
extraordinary situation facing rural America.
    In saying this, we mean no criticism of Chairman Skeen or 
our colleagues on the Agriculture Subcommittee. On the 
contrary, the Chairman and the subcommittee were faced with the 
difficult task of allocating a very restricted sum of money, 
and in our view did as well as could be done under the 
circumstances. While each of us might have made different 
decisions regarding various details, on balance the bill seems 
a reasonable effort to stretch a limited sum of money as far as 
possible. Chairman Skeen approached this task in a spirit of 
good will and cooperation, and deserves commendation for his 
efforts. But none of this changes the reality that the bill 
simply does not do enough to address the depression-level 
prices prevailing in many sectors of the farm economy.
The breakdown of rational budgeting in Congress
    The Agriculture Subcommittee's dilemma reflects the near-
complete breakdown of rational budgeting in Congress. For 
whatever reason, elements in the Majority secured the adoption 
of a congressional budget resolution which calls for total 
domestic appropriations to be cut roughly 10 percent below the 
current year's level and 13.5 percent below what CBO estimates 
is necessary to maintain current services. Some apparently find 
this goal appealing in the abstract. However, implementing this 
goal through actual appropriations bills would produce cuts in 
government services that we believe would be opposed by a 
majority in Congress as well as a majority of the American 
public.
    Faced with this situation not of his making, the Chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee has come up with a temporary 
solution to get the appropriations process moving. He 
proposed--and the committee adopted--``302(b)'' allocations 
that put resources into a handful of domestic appropriations 
bills believed sufficient to allow them to move forward. The 
Agriculture bill is in this group. However, this temporary 
solution leaves a number of other domestic appropriations bills 
with allocations that would require large cuts below the 
current year's level. Few believe that these other bills will 
even be taken up in the House under these draconian 
allocations. The hope seems to be that something will turn up 
later to resolve the impasse--perhaps some end-of-season 
negotiation surrounding another huge omnibus appropriations 
bill, perhaps some sudden discovery of additional resources, or 
perhaps widespread use of emergency exceptions, budgetary 
gimmicks, and timing shifts.
    Many friends of rural America have asked whether the 
Agriculture appropriations bill is better off moving ahead now 
or waiting for whatever future solution is used to passthe 
domestic appropriations bills that have received grossly insufficient 
allocations. There seems no clear answer to that question. Where this 
process is headed is impossible to predict. But the fact that these 
questions are even being asked is a sad commentary on the breakdown of 
budgeting in the House of Representatives.

The crisis in rural America

    We must consider this bill in the context of the crisis 
facing American farm families. While the U.S. economy is 
enjoying near-record prosperity, this wealth is not flowing to 
every community. It is barely trickling into our farmers' 
pockets.
    Farmers continue to experience significant declines in 
agricultural commodity prices that began more than a year ago. 
The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers 
during the last couple of years have expanded to the feed 
grains, oilseed, cotton, pork, and now the dairy sectors. In 
some instances, prices are lower than during the late 1940s. 
Coupled with that is the increasing cost of production and farm 
equipment. As a result, total farm debt is estimated to be $170 
billion at the end of 1998, up 3 percent, on top of a 6 percent 
increase the year before.
    Farm land values began declining in a number of Midwestern 
states during the last half of 1998. The drop in income, 
coupled with declining asset values for many producers, means 
many will have difficulty obtaining credit. Those who do obtain 
credit will use it for cash expenses rather than investment, 
and will find themselves squeezed as they try to repay debt out 
of current income.
    Many producers who struggled with cash flow in 1998 
resulting from low prices and adverse weather will likely see 
their problems worsen in 1999. USDA predicts the greatest 
strain in 1999 will be on field crops. For the 1998 wheat, 
corn, soybean, upland cotton, and rice crops, net income will 
be 17 percent below the previous five-year average, and for 
1999 crops current projections show income 27 percent below the 
previous five-year average. While the equity level of farmers 
is relatively high, farm lenders report that farmers are 
depleting equity at a faster rate than earlier in the decade. 
And unlike the 1980s, many are opting out of farming rather 
than taking on more debt to weather the crisis.
    Certainly, more must be done to keep the American family 
farmer from becoming an endangered species. The government 
cannot by itself solve this problem or ensure prosperity in 
rural America. But government can help, and has a 
responsibility to do so. We need to devise measures to help 
lift prices and sustain incomes. And we need policies to 
address some of the underlying causes of these problems, such 
as the disturbing increases in concentration in the 
agricultural industry--affecting both inputs and marketing 
opportunities.
    The agricultural appropriations bill reported by our 
committee does a number of useful things, but it can hardly be 
considered adequate in the context just described. When our 
farmers need a home run, this bill is at best a bunt to get on 
first base.

Funding levels in the bill

    In terms of the overall level of discretionary 
appropriations, this bill is at most roughly even with FY 1999, 
and in some sense represents a sharp decline. Strictly 
speaking, the bill provides an increase totaling about $250 
million, or 1.8 percent, compared to regular FY 1999 
appropriations. But that comparison ignores the numerous 
emergency supplemental appropriations made for farm programs in 
FY 1999.
    When just the emergency appropriations for two on-going 
programs--farm credit and FSA salaries and expenses--are added 
to the FY 1999 total, the FY 2000 level in the bill represents 
an increase of just 0.2 percent. And when all emergency 
supplemental appropriations are counted in the FY 1999 total, 
the FY 2000 bill is about $6.4 billion (31 percent) below FY 
1999. Finally, the bill represents a cut of $531 million (3.7 
percent) below the Administration's request for FY 2000.
    But the more important question is not how much the bill 
spends but rather what the bill does--and doesn't do. Without 
question, the bill has some good features. For example, it 
provides substantial increases for the Food and Drug 
Administration to help process requests for drug approvals and 
increase the safety of our food supply. It also includes 
increases for the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and 
Inspection Service. Further, the measure provides badly needed 
additional funds to some rural housing and rural development 
programs. It also contains some needed increases for 
agricultural research, pest and disease control through APHIS, 
and NRCS conservation operations, even though these increases 
may fall short of what many believe necessary.

Funding for farm programs

    But on the minus side--and perhaps most significantly for 
farmers facing plunging prices--the bill makes no provision for 
continuing any of the emergency assistance provided in the FY 
1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act or in the recently passed 
supplemental appropriations bill. For example, it doesn't 
continue the market loss payments enacted last Fall, the 
subsidy for crop insurance premiums, or the extra ``section 
32'' funds for hog producers contained in the most recent 
supplemental. It also makes no provision for disaster loss 
payments or for the various disaster assistance programs funded 
in the two emergency packages. And it also contains no new 
initiatives to support farm incomes or remove surpluses from 
markets.
    We are also concerned that in many areas the bill falls 
short of what is needed simply to continue many of the basic 
on-going programs of the Department of Agriculture.
    For example, it reduces USDA farm loan and loan guarantee 
programs below the current year levels. These programs serve as 
lenders (and loan guarantors) of last resort in farm country. 
As commodity prices have fallen, bankers have been requiring 
more farmers to obtain USDA guarantees for their loans, and 
growing numbers of farmers have found it necessary to rely on 
the USDA direct lending programs. During the first half of FY 
1999, demand for these programs grew 65 percent compared to a 
year earlier.
    While the bill provides the amount requested by the 
Administration for FY 2000, these amounts are well below the 
levels that have turned out to be necessary this year. For 
example, the bill provides for $128 million in direct farm 
ownership loans in FY 2000, less than half of the FY 1999 level 
of $286 million (including supplemental appropriations). It 
provides for just $97 million in guaranteed farm operating 
loans with interest subsidies--less than one-fifth of the FY 
1999 level of $542 million. Unless there is a near-miraculous 
recovery in the farm economy, the bill's farm credit levels 
will be grossly inadequate in FY 2000.
    If the bill were enacted with these levels, one or more 
emergency supplemental appropriations would almost certainly be 
needed to replenish the farm lending programs during FY 2000. 
Thus, once again farmers will be waiting for a supplemental 
appropriation to get the credit they need for spring planting. 
This year, Congress took almost three months to provide the 
necessary funds--during which time several key farm credit 
programs ran completely out of money. This bill sets the stage 
for a repetition of this unfortunate process next spring.
    The same is true for Farm Service Agency staff--the workers 
who handle the paperwork for loan deficiency payments, disaster 
assistance, farm credit and similar programs. The levels in the 
bill would reduce county office staff by about 650 positions 
relative to this year. (The bill provides the Administration's 
request, but recent events have shown that request to be 
plainly inadequate.) Another year of large backlogs and months-
long waits for farm payments seems to be in the making. This is 
not only unfair to farmers, its also unfair to the very 
dedicated FSA staff members, many of whom have been working 
extraordinarily long hours in an effort to clear backlogs and 
deliver necessary services.
    Further, the bill reduces funding for food aid programs. 
These programs provide the dual benefit of removing some 
surplus commodities from the U.S. market while at the same time 
helping those in need. Taking only regular appropriations into 
account, the basic ``Food for Peace'' donation programs (PL 480 
titles II and III) would decline by $25 million next year. When 
one also takes into account the special funding provided in FY 
1999 for a Russian food aid program (more than $800 million) 
and the supplemental appropriation of $149 million (primarily 
for Kosovo refugees) just adopted, it becomes clear that total 
new funding for food aid will decline considerably in FY 2000--
at the same time that commodity surpluses are driving down farm 
prices in the U.S.
    We are also concerned about the level of funding for 
control of agricultural pests and diseases through the USDA's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The bill 
does provide some increases in this area, and that's good. 
However, the subcommittee was unable to bring funding for 
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Services up to the level 
that the Administration believes necessary. This program is the 
essential first line of defense against introduction of pests 
and diseases from foreign countries. Some recent arrivals that 
slipped through our defenses--such as citrus canker and the 
Asian long-horned beetle--are now wreaking havoc in some parts 
of the country. While it may not be humanly possible to detect 
and exclude each and every dangerous pest and disease, we need 
to be sure that APHIS has the resources it needs to do the very 
best job it can.

Funding for nutrition programs

    The agriculture bill is also designed to address important 
needs that extend well beyond farm country. In particular, the 
bill funds a number of nutrition programs, which help low-
income children, pregnant women, and senior citizens obtain 
adequate and nutritious foods--while also helping to increase 
demand for the products of American agriculture.
    The largest of the appropriated nutrition programs is the 
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and 
Children--popularly known as ``WIC''. This program enjoys 
widespread support--in part because it is recognized to be an 
excellent investment in health. Each dollar spent on WIC is 
estimated to yield more than three dollars in savings to the 
government through reduced spending on programs such as 
Medicaid. The bill does increase funding for WIC a bit, and we 
applaud that increase. However, it rejects the President's 
proposal to increase the number of participants to 7.5 million 
(out of an estimated 8.5 million people potentially eligible). 
It also appears to fall $25 to $45 million short of the amount 
needed just to maintain the WIC program at roughly 7.4 million 
participants next year.
    The bill also rejects the Administration's request for a 
$10 million increase for nutrition programs for the elderly, 
which would have provided the first increase in per-meal 
subsidy in a number of years. It also fails to fund the 
recently authorized school breakfast pilot program, which is 
designed to provide a rigorous evaluation of the educational 
and nutritional benefits of making school breakfasts available 
to all students in a school. Finally, it denies any of the 
increase requested by the President for federal administration 
of the food and nutrition programs (including Food Stamps and 
Child Nutrition as well as WIC and other programs). These 
increases were requested in part to strengthen program and 
financial integrity and better prevent fraud and abuse.

Funding for conservation programs

    The bill also falls short in funding for important 
conservation programs. Several farm conservation programs that 
actually receive their funding on a direct spending 
basisthrough authorizing legislation are once again subject to 
limitations in this appropriations bill. These limitations hold 
spending below currently authorized levels. The only real purpose of 
the limitations is to produce offsetting savings to help fit the 
appropriations bill within a very tight budget allocation. Among other 
things, these limitations--
          limit new enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve Program 
        to 120,000 acres in FY 2000 (rather than the 199,286 
        acres funded in authorizing law);
          limit funding for the Environmental Quality 
        Incentives Program (EQIP) to $174 million in FY 2000 
        (rather than the $200 million provided for in 
        authorizing law); and
          prohibit any spending on the Conservation Farm Option 
        program in FY 2000 (authorizing law provides $35 
        million).
    The bill also appropriates none of the funding requested by 
the President for the Farmland Protection Program, which 
provides matching funds to states to acquire conservation 
easements on farm lands. Finally, it provides about $26 million 
less than requested by the President for the basic Conservation 
Operations account at the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

Conclusion

    In summary, Chairman Skeen and the subcommittee have 
certainly tried to do the best that could be done with the hand 
that was dealt. Unfortunately, however, the bill falls short of 
what is needed to seriously address the urgent problems facing 
farm families and rural America in general. It is certainly 
true that the appropriations process cannot provide a 
comprehensive legislative solution to farm problems. Action by 
the authorizing committees and others is essential. However, 
under different circumstances the Agriculture appropriations 
bill could have made a greater contribution to the process. And 
one thing is absolutely clear: no matter what forum or 
legislative vehicle is chosen, it is essential that Congress 
seriously begin work on a response to the crisis in farm 
country, and do so quickly as possible.

                                   Marcy Kaptur.
                                   Rosa L. DeLauro.
                                   Maurice D. Hinchey.
                                   Sam Farr.
                                   F. Allen Boyd, Jr.

                                  

```