Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-613
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997

                                _______
                                

  June 7, 1996.--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

                        [To accompany H.R. 3603]

    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 1997.

                                    SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                    
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   1997 recommendation compared 
                                                                                               with             
                                        FY 1996        FY 1997        FY 1997    -------------------------------
                                     appropriation    estimates   recommendation      FY 1996         FY 1997   
                                                                                   appropriation     estimates  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs.....    $16,032,325    $7,531,705     $7,413,106      -$8,619,219       -$118,599
Title II--Conservation Programs....      2,826,968     2,947,879        767,585       -2,059,383      -2,180,294
Title III--Rural Economic and                                                                                   
 Community Development Programs....      2,126,506     2,253,461      1,868,222         -258,284        -385,239
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs...     39,762,868    43,040,429     40,473,374         +710,506      -2,567,055
Title V--Foreign Assistance and                                                                                 
 Related Programs..................      1,627,542     1,598,534      1,576,744          -50,798         -21,790
Title VI--Related Agencies and FDA.        947,469       945,306        953,006           +5,537          +7,700
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................     63,323,678    58,317,314     53,052,037      -10,271,641      -5,265,277
Scorekeeping adjustments...........       -235,780      +127,050       -368,000         -132,220        -495,050
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................     63,087,898    58,444,364     52,684,037      -10,403,861      -5,760,327
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For discretionary programs the Committee provides 
$12,801,445,000, which is $508,555,000 less than the amount 
avail- 
able in fiscal year 1996 and $1,278,680,000 less than the 
budget request.
    For mandatory programs, which account for almost 80 percent 
of the bill, the Committee provides $39,882,592,000, a decrease 
of $9,895,306,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 
1996 and $4,481,647,000 below the budget request.

                              Introduction

    As the quest to balance the budget continues so does it 
create additional difficulty in prioritizing Federal dollars. 
Agriculture is a fragile business impacted by vagaries in 
weather, commodity prices, and Federal policy. Food safety, 
human nutrition, rural development, conservation, and 
agricultural research have historically been priorities of the 
Committee. Increasingly there are no good choices among these. 
How does one choose between food safety inspections and 
providing long term research to find ways to make our food more 
safe and abundant? Making decisions between food for the needy 
or providing low-income housing for rural America seems 
contradictory. Providing safe water in areas where residents 
are drinking polluted water or installing conservation measures 
that will prevent contamination makes the process tenuous at 
best.
    In an effort to make the best choices available, the 
Committee chose to put all USDA and other agencies within the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee on the table. The Committee 
believes it is a better choice to not start or at least slow 
the rate of growth for some new programs rather than make large 
reductions in existing needs that negatively impact nutrition, 
research, or rural development.
    Agricultural trade is the single best positive impact on 
the trade balance of the United States. The only way that less 
than 2 percent of this country's population can produce food 
and fiber for all the needs of this country and also provide 
this country with its tremendous export opportunities is 
through research. As the citizens of this country demand safer 
food and a wider variety of foods as well as higher quality we 
must rely on the talents and facilities of this country's 
scientists in Universities and Federal research programs.
    Protecting this nation's multibillion dollar agriculture 
industry from foreign pests and disease is one of the most 
critical issues facing the United States in the growing global 
economy. As a result, we must commit adequate resources to 
those activities that not only protect our agricultural 
resources, but also increase the marketability of our 
agricultural products. In addition, we must commit to the 
highest level of sanitary and phytosanitary standards so that 
this country's agricultural products can meet the scientific 
tests demanded by this global economy.
    The people of this country rightfully expect that 
government provide effective, efficient programs. Within the 
budgetary constraints that this Congress and the Administration 
is facing, this bill funds effective programs for food safety, 
human nutrition, rural development, conservation, and 
agricultural research. Like the people of this country, this 
Committee also expects that these programs are carried out in 
the most efficient way.
    The Committee recognizes the critical importance of 
agricultural research which underpins the nation's food system; 
the economy and trade; the environment and the health and 
nutrition of the American people. Agriculture's efficient 
production delivers an abundant and affordable food supply to a 
predominately urban U.S. citizenry. It also contributes 
significantly to easing worldwide food demands. Unquestionably, 
contributions of American agriculture stand among the great 
achievements of the 20th century--and investments in 
agricultural research have played a critical role in this 
achievement.
    In recognition of these research contributions, the 
Committee has made every attempt to provide an appropriation 
level for fiscal year 1997 that will sustain vital research 
programs necessary to meet the many challenges ahead.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of The Secretary

1996 appropriation......................................     $10,227,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      10,336,000
Provided in the bill....................................       2,836,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -7,391,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -7,500,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief 
Financial Officer, and members of their immediate staffs, 
directs and coordinates the work of the Department. This 
includes developing policy, maintaining relationships with 
agricultural organizations and others in the development of 
farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the Executive 
Office of the President and Members of Congress on all matters 
pertaining to agricultural policy.
    The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and 
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic 
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
    Service Center Implementation.--The Secretary has direct 
authority over the USDA Service Center implementation effort 
which has incorporated the former InfoShare activity. This 
activity is a partnership among the agricultural, rural 
development, and natural resource agencies of USDA to improve 
information resources management, data sharing, and 
communications and thereby providing improved and more 
efficient service to customers at the USDA Service Centers.

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Secretary the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $2,836,000, a decrease of $7,391,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$7,500,000 below the budget request.
    The budget request for the Office of the Secretary includes 
$7,500,000 for Service Center implementation, formerly known as 
InfoShare. In fiscal year 1996, the Committee provided 
$7,500,000 for the Office of the Secretary to implement the 
InfoShare program. That responsibility was delegated to 
agencies within the Department and the InfoShare staff was 
reassigned to other duties.
    The Service Center plan is being implemented by 
participating agencies and the Committee believes there is no 
need for a separate appropriation. The Committee notes that the 
departmental agencies, not including the Forest Service, plan 
to spend more than $509 million in fiscal year 1996 and more 
than $550 million in fiscal year 1997 on computer hardware, 
software, and related costs. The Committee recommends that any 
funds needed for coordination of the Service Center plan be 
drawn from these or other management budgets.
    The Committee notes that subsidy rates for some rural 
development programs are dramatically lower than those in 
fiscal year 1996 and may not accurately reflect current and 
future interest rates. The Committee further believes that 
levels for loan programs could fall significantly in fiscal 
year 1996 and 1997 as a result of higher interest rates and is 
concerned that the Administration has not taken adequate 
precautions. Public Law 104-127 established a ``Fund for Rural 
America,'' a mandatory spending program which has available 
$100 million for rural development and research beginning 
January 1, 1997. Therefore, the Committee expects the 
Department to use resources from the Fund for Rural America 
primarily to supplement appropriated funds so that essential 
housing, water and sewer programs are maintained at the proper 
levels to protect these programs from the consequences of 
increases in interest rates.
    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
provided for the ``Fund for Rural America.'' The program is 
designed to provide the Department the opportunity for 
flexibility to address the backlog of existing work and to 
address new and innovative approaches to research and rural 
development. However, the authorization included a provision 
that funds could not be used in a program if the appropriated 
amount to several programs was less than 90 percent of the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 plus inflation. With 
overall allocations dwindling, the reality is that few programs 
will maintain that kind of funding. Also, subsidy rates for 
loan programs may vary dramatically from year to year due to 
changes in calculations related to interests rates or other 
factors. As an example, in fiscal year 1996 for the rural 
development loan program the loan subsidy appropriated was 
$22,395,000 and for the fiscal year 1997 bill the subsidy rate 
provided is $18,400,000. Even through the loan volume available 
with the lower subsidy may be more, the provision of the FAIR 
Act would prevent the Department from using funds from the 
``Fund for Rural America'' for this program. This year, because 
of the significant reduction in interest rate projections, 
almost all rural development accounts would not be eligible for 
additional funds. Accordingly, the Committee has placed a 
limitation on use of section 793(d).
    During the hearing process it became apparent that several 
subcabinet officers were enhancing the number of people in 
their immediate office by using agency staff or detailing 
agency staff to their offices. The Committee believes this 
violates the spirit of the individual appropriation for these 
offices and misuses the flexibility provided. Personnel and 
funds are provided to agencies to carry out their missions, 
funds are not provided to agencies so that subcabinet officers 
can build large bureaucratic empires. If subcabinet officers 
believe they need to have more staff to provide policy 
direction to agencies then they should request and justify 
additional increases to their appropriations. Accordingly, the 
Committee has placed a limitation on subcabinet officers that 
allows for details of agency personnel for up to 30 days when 
special assistance is needed, but does not allow for permanent 
positions to be paid for by agencies.
    The Committee urges the Department to work with the 
appropriate committees in the House and Senate to enact 
legislation authorizing agencies such as Rural Business-
Cooperative Service to provide retirement incentives to 
employees to reduce the cost and disruption associated with 
Reductions-in-Force. If Reductions-in-Force are necessary in 
field offices due to budget constraints, the committee expects 
the Department to establish competitive areas which will 
minimize the disruption to employees and the cost to the 
agency. The committee expects the Department to ensure that 
current employees, whose jobs in the St. Louis Finance Office 
are being transferred to the Centralized Servicing Center, are 
given priority consideration for these positions.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to report to the 
Congress by January 31, 1997 on the extent to which 
coordination exists between the Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
Services and the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service on how 
the implementation of Federal nutrition programs directly 
benefit the farmer. The report should include the amount of 
benefits that are in direct support of farmers income as well 
as recommended legislative changes that may be needed to 
increase coordination so the acquisition of commodities and the 
delivery of nutrition programs are more directly beneficial to 
farmers.
    The Committee has delayed the start of the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program, provided $2,000,000 for the Farmland 
Protection Program, and $2,000,000 for the Conservation Farm 
Option Program in fiscal year 1997. These are new programs and 
the Committee believes the Congress and the public should have 
an opportunity to review rules and regulations before full 
funding is provided. The Secretary is directed to continue 
processing the rules and regulations needed to implement these 
programs. No funds are deleted from these programs. Funds are 
only being limited until Congress can assure the programs will 
proceed in an orderly fashion.

                          Executive Operations

    Executive Operations was established as a result of the 
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for 
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services. 
Activities under 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

1996 appropriation......................................      $3,948,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       4,292,000
Provided in the bill....................................       4,231,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        +283,000
    1997 budget estimate................................         -61,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Economist the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $4,231,000, an increase of 
$283,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a 
decrease of $61,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
provides the budget request for full funding of the Office of 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis.

                       National Appeals Division

1996 appropriation......................................     $11,846,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      13,363,000
Provided in the bill....................................      11,718,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        -128,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -1,645,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Appeals Division the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $11,718,000, a decrease of $128,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $1,645,000 below the 
budget request.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

1996 appropriation......................................      $5,899,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       5,986,000
Provided in the bill....................................       5,986,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +87,000
    1997 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 $5,986,000, an increase of $87,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and the same as 
the budget request. This office provides the Committee with the 
necessary budgetary information needed to make critical funding 
and policy decisions. It is essential that this information be 
accurate and provided in a timely fashion; therefore, the 
Committee has provided the budget request for a pay cost 
increase offset by an administrative efficiency decrease.

                        Chief Financial Officer

1996 appropriation......................................      $4,133,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       4,437,000
Provided in the bill....................................       4,283,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        +150,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -154,000

    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 in 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 Communications, and Executive Operations.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $4,283,000, an increase of 
$150,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a 
decrease of $154,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has provided bill language that directs the 
Chief Financial Officer to continue and actively market the 
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.

          Office of The Assistant Secretary for Administration

1996 appropriation......................................        $596,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         613,000
Provided in the bill....................................         613,000
Comparison:.............................................
    1996 appropriation..................................         +17,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    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, automated data processing, 
personnel management, equal opportunity and civil rights 
programs, development and dissemination of departmental 
information resources management, 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 an increase of $17,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

1996 appropriation......................................    $135,774,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     149,635,000
Provided in the bill....................................     125,548,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -10,226,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -24,087,000

    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to 
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space 
and for related services.
    The 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.
    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.

                          Committee Provisions

    For agriculture buildings and facilities and rental 
payments to GSA the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$125,548,000, a decrease of $10,226,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1996 and $24,087,000 below the budget 
request.
    Included in this amount is $120,548,000 for rental payments 
to GSA and building operations and maintenance. 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 
rental space becomes necessary during the year or when 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 budget request for rental payments to GSA includes 
$3,500,000 for the Kansas City collocation project. Since the 
time when the budget request was submitted to Congress, this 
project has been delayed until the year 2000; therefore, the 
requested increase of $3,500,000 is not needed in fiscal year 
1997. The Committee expects GSA to reduce its' billing to USDA 
by this amount.
    The remaining $5,000,000 of the total appropriation is the 
final payment to complete the Beltsville facility. The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 provided the 
Department with the authority to address necessary improvements 
of state and local roads in conjunction with construction of 
the facility. The construction contract was awarded April 30, 
1996.
    The safety of the employees located in the South Building 
is a concern of the Committee. Initial funding was provided in 
fiscal year 1995 to begin the Department's seven-year plan to 
address the serious health and safety hazards which exist in 
the South Building as well as streamline and improve the 
operation and delivery of programs at headquarters in 
Washington. The Department anticipates awarding a design 
contract for the needed renovation work of the South Building 
by the end of calendar year 1996. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to move expeditiously in awarding this contract. The 
safety of the employees should be of the highest priority.

                       Advisory Committees (USDA)

1996 appropriation......................................        $650,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         856,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        -650,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -856,000

    The Department of Agriculture utilizes advisory committees 
to obtain expertise which is not feasible to maintain on the 
permanent staff. Because of the broad range of missions 
performed by the Department and the complexity of skills needed 
in this performance from time to time, it is essential to call 
upon experts in academia and the private sector to supplement 
the expertise of departmental employees in order to assure that 
decisions on major national issues are based upon state-of-the-
art information.

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee provides no direct appropriation for advisory 
committees for fiscal year 1997. Instead, the Committee 
provides a general provision which limits total spending by the 
Department for advisory committees, panels, commissions and 
consultative groups to no more than $1,000,000.

                       Hazardous Waste Management

1996 appropriation......................................     $15,700,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      15,700,000
Provided in the bill....................................      15,700,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    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 amount available for 
fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider a request 
for funds to conduct a private water well quality assessment 
related to the health risks of communities in Nebraska and 
other states due to the use of fumigants in Commodity Credit 
Corporation grain storage sites.

                      Departmental Administration

1996 appropriation...................................... \1\ $27,986,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      29,137,000
Provided in the bill....................................      28,304,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        +318,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -833,000

\1\ Includes $707,000 for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization. The FY 1997 funds for this office are requested in a 
separate appropriation.

    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, ADP and telecommunications management, civil rights 
and equal opportunity, 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.
    In fiscal year 1996, Departmental Administration 
reorganized its policy development and administrative 
operational activities. The reorganization significantly 
altered the alignment of functions and activities within 
Departmental Administration. The previous organization 
structure divided the Departmental Administration function into 
specific program offices, such as personnel, operations, and 
civil rights enforcement. The new organization structure 
divides the function into policy, program operations, and 
support for other offices, and is intended to be more focused 
and responsive to customer needs.

                          Committee Provisions

    For Departmental Administration the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $28,304,000, an increase of $318,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$833,000 below the budget request.
    The total includes funding for the Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

1996 appropriation......................................      $3,797,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       3,842,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,728,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         -69,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -114,000

    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 
$3,728,000, a decrease of $69,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and $114,000 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. The following table reflects the 
amounts provided by the Committee:

Headquarters..................................................  $994,000
Agricultural Research Service.................................   129,000
Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service........   120,000
Foreign Agricultural Service..................................   188,000
Farm Service Agency...........................................   355,000
Rural Utilities Service.......................................   142,000
Rural Business-Cooperative Service............................    52,000
Rural Housing Service.........................................   251,000
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................   148,000
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................   101,000
Agricultural Marketing Service................................   176,000
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................   309,000
Food and Consumer Service.....................................   270,000
Intergovernmental Affairs.....................................   493,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

    Total.....................................................$3,728,000

                        Office of Communications

1996 appropriation......................................      $8,198,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       8,317,000
Provided in the bill....................................       8,138,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         -60,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -179,000

    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, a decrease of $60,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $179,000 below the 
budget request.

                    Office of the Inspector General

1996 appropriation......................................     $63,639,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      64,523,000
Provided in the bill....................................      63,028,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        -611,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -1,495,000

    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 $63,028,000, a decrease of 
$611,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
$1,495,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee commends the Office of the Inspector General 
for its efforts to eliminate fraud in the food stamp program. 
The Committee urges the Office to continue conducting 
``sweeps'' of stores currently participating in the program 
until every high-risk store has been included in the ``sweeps'' 
and is determined to meet the most stringent eligibility 
requirements of the program.

                     Office of The General Counsel

1996 appropriation......................................     $27,860,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      29,249,000
Provided in the bill....................................      27,749,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        -111,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -1,500,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of General Counsel the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $27,749,000, a decrease of $111,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $1,500,000 below the 
budget request.

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

1996 appropriation......................................        $520,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         540,000
Provided in the bill....................................         540,000
Comparison:
     1996 appropriation.................................................
     1997 budget estimate...............................         +20,000


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $540,000, an increase of 
$20,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and the 
same as the budget request.

                       Economic Research Service

1996 appropriation......................................     $53,131,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      54,947,000
Provided in the bill....................................      54,176,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      +1,045,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -771,000


    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 $54,176,000, an increase of $1,045,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $771,000 below 
the budget request.
    Included in the total is the budget request to support the 
agency's role in the Department's integrated pest management 
initiative. This funding is needed to conduct evaluations and 
analyses of survey data collected by the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service on pesticide use and integrated pest 
management practices being used by farmers and ranchers. In 
these times of declining budgets and fiscal restraints it 
becomes necessary to prioritize activities. The Committee has 
eliminated a lower priority program in the Agricultural 
Marketing Service in order to provide additional funding to 
several agencies in support of integrated pest management work.
    The Committee directs the Economic Research Service, in 
coooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
to do a comprehensive study of conservation tillage. The study 
should include the current status of conservation tillage and 
the benefits to agriculture, the environment, and society as a 
whole, as well as recommendations concerning what actions are 
needed to increase the use of conservation tillage and 
estimates of the benefits and costs of doing so.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

1996 appropriation......................................     $81,107,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     102,624,000
Provided in the bill....................................     100,221,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     +19,114,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -2,403,000


     The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, state, and county agricultural 
statistics, which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. These statistics provide 
accurate and timely estimates of current agricultural 
production and measures of the economic and environmental 
welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The fiscal year 1997 budget estimate includes a proposal to 
transfer the Census of Agriculture 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 will provide national, state, and county data as well as 
selected data for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States 
Virgin Islands. The next agricultural census will be conducted 
beginning in January 1998 for the calendar year 1997.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $100,221,000, an 
increase of $19,114,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1996 and a decrease of $2,403,000 below the budget 
request.
    The budget proposes to transfer the Census of Agriculture 
from the Department of Commerce to the Department of 
Agriculture. Included in this amount is the budget request of 
$17,500,000 in support of this transfer. The increase is needed 
for preparation work such as constructing the census mailing 
list and finalizing census reports, printing forms and 
questionnaires. The actual census will be conducted in fiscal 
year 1998.
    Also included in the total is the budget request to support 
the agency's role in the Department's integrated pest 
management initiative. This funding is needed to collect survey 
data on post-harvest pesticide use and integrated pest 
management practices being used by farmers and ranchers. In 
these times of declining budgets and fiscal restraints it 
becomes necessary to prioritize activities. The Committee has 
eliminated a lower priority program in the Agricultural 
Marketing Service in order to provide additional funding to 
several agencies in support of integrated pest management work.

                     Agricultural Research Service

1996 appropriation......................................    $710,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     728,853,000
Provided in the bill....................................     702,831,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -7,169,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -26,022,000

    The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on November 2, 1953, under the 
authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 133z-15), 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. 
Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912) ARS includes functions previously 
performed by the Human Nutrition Information Service and the 
National Agricultural Library. ARS conducts basic and applied 
research in the fields of animal sciences, plant sciences, 
entomology, soil and water conservation, 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 $702,831,000, a decrease of $7,169,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$26,022,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has agreed to many project terminations 
recommended by the Department. Selected project terminations 
will provide existing resources to be redirected to new 
initiatives identified in this report and as requested in the 
President's budget. The Committee has also agreed to general 
reductions and cost efficiencies as justified in the 
Department's Explanatory Notes. In effecting these savings, the 
agency is directed to comply with previous directives to 
implement nonspecific appropriation actions across all 
programs, projects, and activities as reported to this 
Committee. In this regard, as Federal funding declines, the 
importance of Committee oversight and examination of selected 
research projects and funding and their adherence to Committee 
direction will increase.
    Continuing programs.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 1997: Sacramento Valley soil 
and water quality, $100,000; global change, modeling, data 
management--terrestrial systems (CIESIN), $1,000,000; 
management of pearl millet diseases in forages and turf 
ecosystems in Tifton, Georgia, $141,000; the National Turfgrass 
Evaluation Program in Beltsville, Maryland, $55,000; weed 
control research in St. Paul, Minnesota, $196,000; wild rice 
research in St. Paul, Minnesota, $150,000; perennial grass germ 
plasm in Lincoln, Nebraska, $270,000; sugarbeet research in Ft. 
Collins, Colorado, $626,000; development and use of molecular 
techniques in oat enhancement in Aberdeen, Idaho, $162,000; and 
genetic engineering of fungal phytase to reduce groundwater 
contamination at the Southern Regional Research Center, 
$597,000. The Committee directs ARS to continue the rice 
research program at the University of California at Davis. The 
Committee also expects research to continue on long staple 
cotton and western pecan research.
    Rangeland management.--The Committee directs ARS to 
continue its research program at the Jornada Experimental Range 
at the fiscal year 1996 level. This project addresses new 
methods for monitoring, remediation, and development of 
decision models for rangeland management.
    Potato research.--The Committee provides $12,988,000 for 
potato research, the same as the amount requested. The 
Committee expects ARS to work closely with the National Potato 
Council in prioritizing and addressing the research needs of 
the potato industry.
    Arkansas Children's Nutrition Hospital.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $100,000 for additional research at the 
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Hospital.
    Citrus tristeza.--The Committee provides $500,000, the same 
amount as in fiscal year 1996, to combat citrus tristeza virus.
    Fruit research.--The Committee is aware of the very 
important work being carried out at the ARS Northwest Fruit 
Center, Corvallis, Oregon. The Committee provides an increase 
of $200,000 to enhance research investigations that will 
support this country's billion dollar fruit industry.
    Floriculture and horticulture research.--The Committee 
notes the importance and growth of floriculture and 
horticultural crops as a share of the total farm crop cash 
receipts. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 to 
address the research needs of this growing industry.
    Emerging infectious diseases.--The Committee notes the 
emergence of infectious diseases such as karnal bunt and BSE or 
mad cow disease which has devastated England's cattle industry. 
The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to enable ARS to 
investigate such agriculturally related infectious diseases in 
a more effective manner.
    Everglades ecosystem restoration.--The Committee refers the 
Department to section 390 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Everglades Ecosystem 
Restoration Project. The Committee recommends that the budget 
request of $2,000,000 for research to strengthen the South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration program be funded from this 
special account.
    Honey bee research.--The Committee provides $5,574,000 for 
honey bee research, the same amount as requested in the fiscal 
year 1997 budget. The Committee directs that the ongoing honey 
bee research programs at Tucson, Arizona; Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana; Beltsville, Maryland; and Weslaco, Texas, be 
maintained at the same research laboratories.
    Rice research.--The Committee is aware of the important 
rice research program conducted at the ARS Rice Research 
Laboratory in Beaumont, Texas. The Committee expects the 
Department to continue to provide the same level of funding for 
the rice research carried out at its Beaumont, Texas 
laboratory.
    Geneticist at Pullman, Washington.--The Committee expects 
ARS to expedite the replacement of the vacated wheat geneticist 
position located at Pullman, Washington.
    Integrated pest management and biocontrol of pests.--The 
Committee provides additional funding of $3,000,000 for IPM and 
biocontrol research initiatives as recommended in the fiscal 
year 1997 budget request. These resources will be used to 
develop pest management technologies and technologies to 
producing promising biocontrol agents and their deployment in 
the field.
    Genetic resources.--USDA's plant genetic resources 
collections are critical to ensuring the future availability of 
genetic diversity in crops. The Committee provides an increase 
of $500,000 in fiscal year 1997 for plant germ plasm activities 
carried out at the National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort 
Collins, Colorado.
    Food safety.--In last year's report, the Committee stated 
that it expected FSIS to coordinate its research needs with 
ARS. The report also emphasized that ARS accommodate FSIS but 
balance its food safety research to respond to overall agency 
requirements. The Committee provides an increase of $4,000,000 
in fiscal year 1997 for food safety research projects requested 
by the Department to strengthen the post-harvest pathogen 
reduction program with emphasis in the areas of pathogen 
reducing slaughter processes; risk assessment technologies; 
rapid diagnostic and detection methods; and preharvest on-farm 
diagnostic tests.
    Integrated farming systems.--The Department's budget 
includes a request for research in regional, rather than site 
specific, farming systems. The Committee provides an increase 
of $500,000 to finance the Atlantic Regional Program for 
integrated production systems for field and horticultural crops 
and grassland management systems for dairy and beef production.
    Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,000,000 for additional research related to a replacement for 
methyl bromide.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The 
Committee expects the agency to continue its Illinois work on 
the Corporation's research.
    Composting research.--ARS should continue its organic waste 
utilization project at the same amount as last year, $300,000. 
This project is focusing on methods to best integrate waste 
utilization into sustainable agricultural practices.
    Sugarcane research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of furthering the science of molecular techniques in 
sugarcane. By mapping useful genes, transferring these and 
exotic genes into sugarcane germ plasm, and improving selection 
techniques for sugarcane cultivators much progress can be made 
to increase the efficiency and global competitiveness of the 
U.S. sugar industry. ARS should continue its strong public/
private relationship with the American Sugar Cane League and 
expand biotechnology at the work site of the ARS Southern 
Regional Research Center in Houma, Louisiana.
    Phytoestrogens research.--Phytoestrogens are natural 
constituents of the diet which are produced in plants and been 
shown to have beneficial health effects. The Committee has 
provided $450,000 for the Southern Regional Research Center for 
a broad-based research program to investigate the mechanisms of 
production and action of phytoestrogens, the design and 
formulation of pharmacologically active forms of candidate 
phytoestrogens, and to test their efficacy in animal and human 
subjects.

                        Buildings and Facilities

1996 appropriation......................................     $30,200,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      80,100,000
Provided in the bill....................................      32,600,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      +2,400,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -47,500,000


    The ARS Buildings and Facilities account was established 
for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
facilities which directly or indirectly support research and 
extension programs of the Department. Routine 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 
$59,600,000, an increase of $29,400,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $20,500,000 
below the budget request. The Committee is aware of the need to 
move the Western Human Nutrition Laboratory. The following 
table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

                      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE                     
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1996      FY 1997     Committee 
                                     enacted      request     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES                                           
                                                                        
Arkansas:                                                               
     Rice Germplasm Center,                                             
     Stuttgart...................        1,000  ...........  ...........
California:                                                             
     Horticulture Crops Research                                        
     Lab, Fresno to Parlier......  ...........       22,000  ...........
     Western Regional Research                                          
     Center......................  ...........        4,600        4,000
Florida:                                                                
     Horticulture Research Lab,                                         
     Ft. Pierce..................        1,500       29,800       27,000
     Quarantine Facility, Ft.                                           
     Lauderdale..................  ...........        4,000  ...........
Illinois:                                                               
     National Center for                                                
     Agricultural Utilization                                           
     Research, Peoria............        3,900        1,500        1,500
    Ethanol pilot plant..........  ...........  ...........        1,500
Kansas:                                                                 
     Grain Marketing Research Lab        1,000  ...........  ...........
Louisiana:                                                              
     Southern Regional Research                                         
     Center......................          900  ...........  ...........
Maryland:                                                               
     Beltsville Agricultural                                            
     Research Center.............        8,000        4,500        4,500
Mississippi:                                                            
     National Center for Natural                                        
     Products....................        1,500  ...........  ...........
     National Center for Warm                                           
     Water Aquaculture...........        1,900  ...........  ...........
New York:                                                               
     Plum Island Animal Disease                                         
     Center......................        5,000        5,000        5,000
Pennsylvania:                                                           
     Eastern Regional Research                                          
     Center......................  ...........        4,700        4,000
South Carolina:                                                         
     U.S. Vegetable Lab,                                                
     Charleston..................        3,000  ...........  ...........
Texas:                                                                  
     Plant Stress Lab, Texas Tech                                       
     University..................        1,500  ...........        8,100
     Subtropical Lab, Weslaco....        1,000        4,000        4,000
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Buildings and                                              
       Facilities................       30,200       80,100       59,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      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

1996 appropriation......................................    $421,929,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     418,572,000
Provided in the bill....................................     411,849,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -10,080,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -6,723,000

    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, 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 on 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture.

                          Committee Provisions

    For payments under the Hatch Act the Committee provides 
$163,671,000, a decrease of $5,063,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $5,063,000 
below the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research the Committee provides 
$19,882,000, a decrease of $615,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $615,000 below the 
budget request.
    For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee 
University the Committee provides $26,902,000, a decrease of 
$833,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
$833,000 below the budget request.

                         RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 1996     FY 1997       Committee    
                                 enacted     request       provisions   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION                                              
          ACTIVITIES                                                    
                                                                        
Payments Under Hatch Act.....     168,734     168,734            163,671
Cooperative forestry research                                           
 (McIntire-Stennis)..........      20,497      20,497             19,882
Payments to 1890 colleges and                                           
 Tuskegee....................      27,735      27,735             26,902
Special Research Grants (P.L.                                           
 89-106):                                                               
    Aflatoxin................         113  ..........                113
    Agricultural                                                        
     diversification (HI)....         131  ..........                131
    Agricultural management                                             
     systems (MA)............         221  ..........  .................
    Alfalfa (KS).............         106  ..........  .................
    Alliance for food                                                   
     protection (NE, GA).....         300  ..........                300
    Alternative cropping                                                
     systems (Southeast).....         235  ..........  .................
    Alternative crops (ND)...         550  ..........                550
    Alternative crops for                                               
     arid lands (TX).........          85  ..........                 85
    Alternative marine and                                              
     fresh water species (MS)         308  ..........                308
    Apple fireblight (MI, NY)  ..........  ..........                325
    Aquaculture (CT).........         181  ..........  .................
    Aquaculture (IL).........         169  ..........                169
    Aquaculture (LA).........         330  ..........                330
    Aquaculture (MS).........         592  ..........                592
    Aquaculture (NC).........  ..........  ..........                150
    Asian Products Lab (OR)..         212  ..........                212
    Bacock Institute (WI)....         312  ..........  .................
    Barley feed for rangeland                                           
     cattle (MT).............         250  ..........                250
    Binational Ag. Research &                                           
     Dev.....................  ..........  ..........              2,500
    Biodiesel research (MO)..         152  ..........                150
    Biotechnology (OR).......         217  ..........                217
    Broom snakeweed (NM).....         169  ..........                175
    Canola (KS)..............          85  ..........                 85
    Center for animal health                                            
     and productivity (PA)...         113  ..........                113
    Center for innovative                                               
     food technology (OH)....         181  ..........                181
    Center for rural studies                                            
     (VT)....................          32  ..........  .................
    Chesapeake Bay                                                      
     aquaculture.............         370  ..........                370
    Coastal/cultivars........  ..........  ..........                200
    Competitiveness of                                                  
     agricultural products                                              
     (WA)....................         677  ..........                677
    Cool season legume                                                  
     research (ID, WA).......         329  ..........                329
    Cranberry/blueberry                                                 
     disease and breeding                                               
     (NJ)....................         220  ..........                220
    Dairy and meat goat                                                 
     research (TX)...........          63  ..........  .................
    Delta rural                                                         
     revitalization (MS).....         148  ..........                148
    Dried bean (ND)..........          85  ..........  .................
    Drought mitigation (NE)..         200  ..........                200
    Environmental research                                              
     (NY)....................         486  ..........                486
    Environmental risk                                                  
     factors--cancer (NY)....  ..........  ..........                100
    Expanded wheat pasture                                              
     (OK)....................         285  ..........                285
    Farm and rural business                                             
     finance (IL, AR)........         106  ..........                106
    Floriculture (HI)........         250  ..........  .................
    Food and Agriculture                                                
     Policy Institute (IA,                                              
     MO).....................         850  ..........                800
    Food irradiation (IA)....         201  ..........  .................
    Food Marketing Policy                                               
     Center (CT).............         332  ..........                332
    Food Processing Center                                              
     (NE)....................          42  ..........  .................
    Food safety consortium                                              
     (AR, KS, IA)............       1,743  ..........              1,690
    Food systems research                                               
     group (WI)..............         221  ..........                221
    Forestry (AR)............         523  ..........                523
    Fruit and vegetable                                                 
     market analysis (AZ, MO)         296  ..........                296
    Generic commodity                                                   
     promotion research and                                             
     evaluation (NY).........         212  ..........                212
    Global change............       1,615       1,615              1,567
    Global marketing support                                            
     service (AR)............          92  ..........  .................
    Grass seed cropping                                                 
     systems for a                                                      
     sustainable agriculture                                            
     (WA, OR, ID)............         423  ..........  .................
    Human nutrition (AR).....         425  ..........                425
    Human nutrition (IA).....         473  ..........                473
    Human nutrition (LA).....         752  ..........                752
    Human nutrition (NY).....         622  ..........                622
    Illinois-Missouri                                                   
     Alliance for                                                       
     Biotechnology...........       1,357  ..........              1,316
    Improved dairy management                                           
     practices (PA)..........         296  ..........                296
    Improved fruit practices                                            
     (MI)....................         445  ..........                445
    Institute for Food                                                  
     Science and Engineering                                            
     (AR)....................         750  ..........                750
    Integrated production                                               
     systems (OK)............         161  ..........                161
    International arid lands                                            
     consortium..............         329  ..........                329
    Iowa biotechnology                                                  
     consortium..............       1,792  ..........  .................
    Jointed goatgrass (WA)...         296  ..........                296
    Landscaping for water                                               
     quality (GA)............         300  ..........                300
    Livestock and dairy                                                 
     policy (NY, TX).........         445  ..........                445
    Lowbush blueberry                                                   
     research (ME)...........         220  ..........                220
    Maple research (VT)......          84  ..........  .................
    Michigan biotechnology                                              
     consortium..............         750  ..........                750
    Midwest advanced food                                               
     manufacturing alliance..         423  ..........                423
    Midwest agricultural                                                
     products (IA)...........         592  ..........                592
    Milk safety (PA).........         268  ..........  .................
    Minor use animal drug....         550         550                550
    Molluscan shellfish (OR).         300  ..........                300
    Multi-commodity research                                            
     (OR)....................         364  ..........  .................
    Multi-cropping strategies                                           
     for aquaculture (HI)....         127  ..........  .................
    National biological                                                 
     impact assessment.......         254         254                254
    Nematode resistance                                                 
     genetic engineering (NM)         127  ..........                127
    Non-food agricultural                                               
     products (NE)...........          64  ..........  .................
    North central                                                       
     biotechnology initiative       2,000  ..........              1,940
    Oil resources from desert                                           
     plants (NM).............         169  ..........                175
    Organic waste utilization                                           
     (NM)....................         150  ..........                100
    Peach tree short life                                               
     (SC)....................         162  ..........  .................
    Pest control alternative                                            
     (SC)....................         106  ..........  .................
    Phytophthora root rot                                               
     (NM)....................         127  ..........                127
    Post Harvest Rice Straw                                             
     (CA)....................  ..........  ..........                100
    Potato research..........       1,214  ..........              1,214
    Preharvest food safety                                              
     (KS)....................         212  ..........                212
    Preservation and                                                    
     processing research (OK)         226  ..........                226
    Red River Corridor (MN,                                             
     ND).....................         169  ..........  .................
    Regional barley gene                                                
     mapping project.........         348  ..........                348
    Regionalized implications                                           
     of farm programs (MO,                                              
     TX).....................         294  ..........                294
    Rice modeling, (AR)......         395  ..........                395
    Rural development centers                                           
     (PA, IA (ND), MS, OR)...         423         423                423
    Rural Policies Institute                                            
     (AR, NE, MO)............         644  ..........                644
    Russian wheat aphid (WA,                                            
     OR, CO, CA, ID).........         455  ..........  .................
    Seafood and aquaculture                                             
     harvesting, processing,                                            
     and marketing (MS)......         305  ..........                305
    Small fruit research (OR,                                           
     WA, ID).................         212  ..........                212
    Southwest consortium for                                            
     plant genetics and water                                           
     resources...............         338  ..........                338
    Soybean cyst nematode                                               
     (MO)....................         303  ..........                303
    STEEP II--water quality                                             
     in Northwest............         500  ..........                500
    Sunflower insects (ND)...         127  ..........  .................
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     (MI)....................         445  ..........                445
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     and natural resources                                              
     (PA)....................          94  ..........  .................
    Sustainable agriculture                                             
     systems (NE)............          59  ..........  .................
    Swine waste mgt (NC).....  ..........  ..........                150
    Tillage, silviculture,                                              
     waste management (LA)...         212  ..........                212
    Tropical and subtropical.       2,809  ..........              2,724
    Urban pests (GA).........          64  ..........                 64
    Viticulture consortium                                              
     (NY, CA)................         500  ..........                500
    Water conservation (KS)..          79  ..........                 79
    Water quality............       2,757       2,757              2,757
    Weed control (ND)........         423  ..........  .................
    Wheat genetic research                                              
     (KS)....................         176  ..........                176
    Wood utilization research                                           
     (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI)       3,758  ..........              3,536
    Wool research (TX, MT,                                              
     WY).....................         212  ..........                212
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Special Research                                           
       Grants................      47,846       5,599             44,235
                              ==========================================
Improved pest control:                                                  
    Integrated pest                                                     
     management..............       2,731       8,000              2,731
    Pesticide clearance (IR-                                            
     4)......................       5,711      10,711              5,711
    Pesticide impact                                                    
     assessment..............       1,327       1,327              1,327
    Expert IPM decision                                                 
     support system..........         177         300                177
    Critical issues..........         200         200                200
    Emerging pest and disease                                           
     issues..................       1,623       4,200              1,623
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest                                              
       control...............      11,769      24,738             11,769
                              ==========================================
Competitive research grants:                                            
    Plant systems............      37,000      47,000             37,000
    Animal systems...........      23,750      29,500             23,750
    Nutrition, food quality,                                            
     and health..............       7,400      11,000              7,400
    Natural resources and the                                           
     environment.............      17,650      27,000             17,650
    Processing for adding or                                            
     developing new products.       6,935       9,000              6,935
    Markets, trade and rural                                            
     developing..............       4,000       6,500              4,000
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Competitive                                                
       research grants.......      96,735     130,000             96,735
                              ==========================================
Animal Health and Disease                                               
 (Sec. 1433).................       5,051       5,051              4,775
Critical Agricultural                                                   
 Materials Act...............         500  ..........                500
Aquaculture Centers (Sec.                                               
 1475).......................       4,000       4,000              4,000
Rangeland Research Grants                                               
 (Sec. 1480).................         475         475                475
Advanced materials...........  ..........         650  .................
Alternative crops............         650  ..........                650
Low-input agriculture........       8,100       8,100              8,000
Capacity building grants.....       9,200       9,200              9,200
Payments to the 1994                                                    
 institutions................       1,450       1,450              1,450
Graduate fellowship grants...       3,500       3,500              3,000
Institute challenge grants...       4,350       4,350              4,000
Multcultural scholars program       1,000       1,000              1,000
Hispanic education                                                      
 partnership grants..........  ..........       1,500  .................
Hispanic serving institutions  ..........  ..........              2,000
Federal Administration:                                                 
    Agriculture development                                             
     in American Pacific.....         564  ..........                564
    Alternative Fuels                                                   
     Characterization Lab                                               
     (ND)....................         218  ..........                218
    Center for Agricultural                                             
     and Rural Development                                              
     (IA)....................         655  ..........                655
    Center for North American                                           
     Studies (TX)............          87  ..........                 87
    Data Information System..  ..........         500                400
    Geographic information                                              
     system..................         939  ..........                750
    Herd management (TN).....         535  ..........  .................
    Mississippi Valley State                                            
     University..............         583  ..........                583
    Office of Extramural                                                
     Programs................         314         310                310
    Pay costs and FERS                                                  
     (prior).................         551         833                833
    Peer panels..............         350         350                350
    PM-10 study (CA, WA).....         873  ..........                873
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,                                             
     HI, MS, MA, SC).........       3,054  ..........              3,054
    Vocational aquaculture                                              
     education...............         436  ..........  .................
    Water quality (IL).......         492  ..........                492
    Water quality (ND).......         436  ..........                436
    Rural partnership........         250  ..........  .................
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal                                                    
       Administration........      10,337       1,993              9,605
                              ==========================================
      Total, Research and                                               
       Education Activities..     421,929     418,572            411,849
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Apple Fireblight (MI, NY).--The Committee provides a grant 
of $325,000 for research on fireblight. Fireblight is a 
bacterial disease that is jeopardizing apple production in the 
East and Midwest. The growing conditions in producing states 
are ideal for the spread of the bacterial organism. The 
research will focus on reducing the use of chemicals to control 
the fireblight organism.
    Aquaculture (NC).--North Carolina offers a unique 
opportunity in aquaculture production. It rests in the 
transition zone between subtropical and temperate ranges which 
makes it possible to grow a variety of species. Species on 
which research will occur include mountain trout, striped bass, 
flounder, oyster and clam. The Committee provides an 
appropriation of $150,000.
    Coastal Cultivars (GA).--Southeastern coastal states have 
specific cultural practices related to both home horticulture 
and erosion control. The Committee recommends a grant of 
$200,000 to address these needs. In particular research will 
focus on agriculture products related to Arundinaria and 
Dendrocalamus.
    Post Harvest Rice Straw (CA).--The Committee includes 
$100,000 for research into alternatives to post-harvest rice 
straw burning. Currently this is the common practice after 
harvest. Identifying alternatives to this practice will protect 
and improve ambient air quality while helping growers address 
the high costs of alternative disposal methods.
    Potato Research.--Potatoes are grown in a number of states, 
including Wisconsin, and the Committee directs the Department 
to ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are 
awarded competitively.
    Swine Waste Management (NC).--For waste management research 
on swine in North Carolina the Committee provides $150,000. 
North Carolina has become the second largest hog production 
state and its soil and climate conditions are significantly 
different than the major producing states. This research 
project will develop a system of waste management without open 
storage lagoons and which will allow application of specialized 
intensive management practices which protects soil, water and 
air quality.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

1996 appropriation......................................    ($4,600,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................     (4,600,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (4,600,000)
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 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 (29 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 appropriates $4,600,000, the same as the amount 
available in fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget 
request.

                          Extension Activities

1996 appropriation......................................    $427,750,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     423,488,000
Provided in the bill....................................     409,670,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -18,080,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -13,818,000

    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 $409,670,000, a decrease of $18,080,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$13,818,000 below the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

                          SCIENCE AND EDUCATION                         
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY 1996    FY 1997    Committee
                                         enacted    request   provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Extension Activities                                           
                                                                        
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)...............    268,493    268,493     260,438
Smith Lever: 3(d)                                                       
    Pest management...................     10,783     15,000      10,783
    Water quality.....................     11,065     11,065      10,733
    Farm safety.......................      2,943        988       2,855
    Food and nutrition education                                        
     (EFNEP)..........................     60,510     60,510      58,695
    Pesticide impact assessment.......      3,313      3,313       3,214
    Rural development centers.........        936        936         908
    Sustainable agriculture...........      3,411      3,411       3,309
    Food safety.......................      2,438      2,438       2,365
    Youth-at-risk.....................      9,850      9,850       9,554
    Indian Reservation agents.........      1,724      1,724       1,672
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee............     25,090     25,090      24,337
1890 facilities grants................      7,782      7,782       7,549
Renewable Resources Extension Act.....      3,291      3,291       3,192
Agricultural telecommunications.......      1,203      1,203       1,167
Rural health and safety education.....      2,709      2,709       2,628
                                       ---------------------------------
      Subtotal........................    415,541    417,803     403,399
                                       =================================
Federal Administration and special                                      
 grants:                                                                
    General administration............      5,162      5,685       4,995
    Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS).....        326  .........  ..........
    Pilot tech. transfer (WI).........        163  .........         163
    Rural rehabilitation (GA).........        246  .........  ..........
    Income enhancement demonstration                                    
     (OH).............................        246  .........         246
    Rural development (NM)............        227  .........         227
    Rural development (NE)............        386  .........  ..........
    Rural Development (OK)............        296  .........  ..........
    Beef producers' improvement (AR)..        197  .........  ..........
    Integrated cow/calf resources                                       
     management (IA)..................        345  .........  ..........
    Extension specialist (AR).........         99  .........  ..........
    Rural Center for the Study and                                      
     Promotion of HIV/STD Prevention                                    
     (IN).............................        246  .........         246
    Delta Teachers Academy............      3,876  .........  ..........
    Wood biomass as an alternative                                      
     farm product (NY)................        197  .........         197
    Range improvement (NM)............        197  .........         197
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration                                     
       and special grants.............     12,209      5,685       6,271
                                       =================================
      Total, Extension Activities.....    427,750    423,488     409,670
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
applicants for section 3(d) grants to develop matching funding 
from non-Federal sources. It is not the Committee's intention 
to prevent funding for any section 3(d) grant because of a lack 
of full matching funds this year, but rather to encourage, to 
the maximum extent possible, that matching funds be provided. 
In this period of scarce Federal resources, the need for 
matching funds will take on increasing importance.
    The Committee includes $50,000, within the total available 
for the Youth-at-Risk Program, for the I-CARE Program in Marion 
County, Illinois.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider the merits 
of funding an extension agent at the Hoopa Valley Tribe 
Reservation.

                        Buildings and Facilities

1996 appropriation......................................     $57,838,000
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................      30,449,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -27,389,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     +30,449,000

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 1996  Fiscal year 1997      Committee   
                                                                 enacted          estimate       recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Poultry science facility, Auburn University......             1,338  ................  ................
Arkansas: Alternative Pest Control Center, Carnall Hall...             1,000  ................  ................
California: Alternative Pest Control Containment and                                                            
 Quarantine Facility, University of California............             3,057  ................             5,000
Colorado: Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology                                                                 
 Laboratory, Colorado State University....................  ................  ................             1,100
Connecticut: Agricultural biotechnology building,                                                               
 University of Connecticut................................             1,347  ................  ................
Delaware: Poultry Biocontainment Laboratory...............             1,751  ................  ................
Florida: Aquatic Research Facility, University of Florida.             1,500  ................  ................
Illinois:                                                                                                       
    Biotechnology Center, Northwestern University.........             1,366  ................             1,000
    Science facility, DePaul University...................  ................  ................             2,000
Louisiana: Southeast Research Station, Franklinton........             1,280  ................  ................
Maryland: Institute for Natural Resources and                                                                   
 Environmental Science, University of Maryland............             2,288  ................             2,288
Massachusetts: Center for Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition                                                         
 Policy, Tuffs University.................................             1,641  ................  ................
Mississippi:                                                                                                    
    Center for Water and Wetland Resources, University of                                                       
     Mississippi..........................................             1,555  ................  ................
    National Food Service Management Institute............             3,000  ................  ................
Missouri: Center for Plant Biodiversity, St. Louis........             3,995  ................               500
New Jersey: Plant Bioscience Facility, Rutgers University.             2,262  ................             3,850
New Mexico: Center for Arid Land Studies, New Mexico State                                                      
 University...............................................             1,464  ................             7,318
New York: New York Botanical Garden.......................             1,665  ................  ................
North Carolina: Bowman-Gray Center, Wake Forest...........             3,000  ................             1,000
Ohio: Lake Erie Soil and Water Research and Education                                                           
 Center...................................................  ................  ................             2,308
Oklahoma: Grain Storage Research and Extension Center,                                                          
 Oklahoma State University................................               495  ................  ................
Oregon: Forest Ecosystem Research Lab, Oregon State                                                             
 University...............................................             5,000  ................  ................
Pennsylvania: Center for Food Marketing, St. Joseph's                                                           
 University...............................................             2,438  ................  ................
Rhode Island: Coastal Institute on Narragansett Bay,                                                            
 University of Rhode Island...............................             3,854  ................  ................
South Dakota: Animal Resource Wing, South Dakota State                                                          
 University...............................................             2,700  ................  ................
Tennessee:                                                                                                      
    Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Research                                                         
     Complex, University of Tennessee in Knoxville........             1,928  ................  ................
    Horse Science and Teaching Center, Middle Tennessee                                                         
     State University.....................................  ................  ................             2,585
Texas: Southern crop improvement, Texas A&M...............;             1,400  ................  ................
Vermont: Rural Community Interactive Learning Center,                                                           
 University of Vermont....................................             2,000  ................  ................
Washington:                                                                                                     
    Animal Disease Biotechnology Facility, Washington                                                           
     State University.....................................             1,263  ................             1,500
    Wheat research facility, Washington State University..             3,251  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, buildings and facilities.....................            57,838  ................            30,449
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report requested.                                                                                           

                          Committee Provisions

    For CSREES Buildings and Facilities the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $30,449,000, a decrease of $27,389,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and an increase 
of $30,449,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the conference report on the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation indicated that fiscal year 1997 
would be the last year of funding for this account. 
Accordingly, even within the severe budget constraints, the 
Committee has made every effort to complete the Federal funding 
phase of several buildings. The Committee expects other 
universities to find alternative funding. The Committee 
suggests that the agency monitor these buildings closely and if 
alternative funding is not available within 3 years that it 
make efforts to withdraw any remaining Federal funds.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

1996 appropriation......................................        $605,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         618,000
Provided in the bill....................................         618,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +13,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$618,000, an increase of $13,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                              Appropriation       User Fees       Total, APHIS  
                                                                                                                
1996 appropriation........................................      $331,667,000  \1\ ($100,254,00                  
                                                                                            0)  \1\ ($431,921,00
                                                                                                              0)
1997 budget estimate......................................       339,033,000  \2\ (100,000,000                  
                                                                                             )  \2\ (439,033,000
                                                                                                               )
Provided in the bill......................................       337,428,000  \2\ (98,000,000)  \2\ (435,428,000
                                                                                                               )
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation....................................        +5,761,000      (-2,254,000)      (+3,507,000)
    1997 budget estimate..................................        -1,605,000      (-2,000,000)      (-3,605,000)
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
\1\ Does not include an increase of $26,773,000 in AQI user fees authority.                                     
\2\ Does not include $24,857,000 anticipated from FAIR Act direct appropriation.                                


    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was 
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, 
under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and 
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect 
the animal and plant resources of the nation from diseases and 
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas 
of activity, as follows:
    Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection 
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports-of-entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control 
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic 
activities.
    Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such 
as states, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
agency.
     Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities 
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and 
horses as required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection 
Acts. These activities include inspection of certain 
establishments which handle animals intended for research, 
exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.
    Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed 
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals; 
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and 
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered 
products.
    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--SALARIES AND EXPENSES                       
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 1996         FY 1997        Committee  
                                                                      enacted         request       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and Disease Exclusion:                                                                                     
    Agricultural quarantine inspection..........................          24,914          26,047          26,047
    User fees \1\...............................................         100,254         100,000          98,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Agricultural quarantine inspection............         125,168         126,047         124,047
    Cattle ticks................................................           4,537           4,537           4,537
    Foot-and-mouth disease......................................           3,991           4,132           3,991
    Import-export inspection....................................           6,528           7,165           6,847
    International programs......................................           6,100           7,186           6,643
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection...........................          16,151          26,238          21,161
    Screwworm...................................................          33,969          31,713          31,713
    Tropical bont tick..........................................             452             535             452
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, Pest and Disease Exclusion.......................         196,896         207,553         199,391
                                                                 ===============================================
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring:                                                                             
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance...................          59,276          60,831          60,831
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement..............           5,855           5,855           5,855
    Pest detection..............................................           4,202           4,853           4,202
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.................          69,333          71,539          70,888
                                                                 ===============================================
Pest and Disease Management Programs:                                                                           
    Animal damage control--operations...........................          26,642          26,642          26,842
    Aquaculture.................................................             470             672             571
    Biocontrol..................................................           6,290           6,387           6,290
    Boll weevil.................................................          18,084           9,834          16,209
    Brucellosis eradication.....................................          23,360          19,962          23,360
    Golden nematode.............................................             435             444             444
    Grasshopper and Mormon cricket..............................  ..............           2,659  ..............
    Gypsy moth..................................................           4,367           4,985           4,367
    Imported fire ant...........................................           1,000  ..............           1,000
    Miscellaneous plant diseases................................           1,516           1,799           1,516
    Noxious weeds...............................................             338             304             304
    Pink bollworm...............................................           1,069           1,463           1,069
    Pseudorabies................................................           4,543           4,518           4,518
    Scrapie.....................................................           2,967           2,161           2,967
    Sweet potato whitefly.......................................           2,398           1,888           1,888
    Tuberculosis................................................           4,609           5,288           4,948
    Witchweed...................................................           1,663           1,662           1,662
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, Pest and Disease Management Programs.............          99,751          90,668          97,955
                                                                 ===============================================
Animal Care:                                                                                                    
    Animal welfare..............................................           9,185           9,624           9,185
    Horse protection............................................             362             360             360
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, Animal Care......................................           9,547           9,984           9,545
                                                                 ===============================================
Scientific and Technical Services:                                                                              
    ADC methods development.....................................           9,665          10,591          10,591
    Biotechnology/environmental protection......................           7,677           7,722           7,677
    Integrated systems acquisition project......................           4,055           4,000           4,000
    Plant methods development laboratories......................           5,053           5,048           5,048
    Veterinary biologics........................................          10,360          10,768          10,360
    Veterinary diagnostics......................................          14,785          16,160          15,473
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, Scientific and Technical Services................          51,595          54,289          53,149
                                                                 ===============================================
Contingency fund................................................           4,799           5,000           4,500
                                                                 ===============================================
        Total, Salaries and Expenses............................         431,921         439,033         435,428
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition $24,857,000 is anticipated from Farm Bill direct appropriation.                                 

    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--In an attempt to 
assure that the agricultural quarantine inspection user fee 
account would have access to all the funds that were collected, 
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
amended the program. But in doing so, the amendment only made 
amounts collected in excess of $100,000,000 directly available 
for program operations. The first $100,000,000 collected still 
must be appropriated. The Committee provides $98,000,000 for 
the AQI user fee program, a decrease of $2,000,000 below the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1996.
    Animal Damage Control.--The Administration is moving ahead 
with its wolf population expansion and reintroduction programs 
around the country. While the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
the National Park Service are the agencies responsible for 
reintroducing the wolves in certain areas around the country, 
APHIS is responsible for continued predator monitoring and 
surveillance work. APHIS currently receives $60,000 per year 
from the Fish and Wildlife Service for this work, but with 
efforts to expand populations and reintroduction areas the 
agency is facing a budget shortfall of as much as $450,000 each 
year in surveillance work. The Committee has provided the 
agency an additional $100,000 to help offset these costs. The 
Committee also expects the Administration to provide APHIS with 
adequate resources for monitoring wolf packs if this program is 
continued or expanded.
    The Committee has also included an additional $100,000 to 
support predator control efforts in the western region.
    The Committee expects APHIS to assure, to the maximum 
extent possible, that all control activities be cost-shared 
with local sponsors. The Committee expects APHIS to continue 
work related to beaver control in East Texas, rabies epizootics 
control in South Texas, blackbird damage control in North 
Dakota and Louisiana, the mountain lion threat to wool growers 
in California, deer and nonmigratory bird damage in New Jersey.
    The Committee has provided a one-time increase of $926,000 
to cover relocation costs of moving employees to the new 
Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The 
Committee expects that APHIS will use non-lethal methods of 
predator control as the method of first choice.
    Avocados.--The fiscal year 1996 conference report included 
language regarding the importation of fresh Mexican avocados. 
The Committee believes that adequate safeguards must be in 
place to protect domestic avocados and other high-value crops 
from infestation by injurious exotic pests. The Department is 
in the process of promulgating a rule on the importation of 
Mexican avocados. The Committee expects the Secretary to review 
recent evidence of pest infestation and determine whether the 
original data it relied upon is sound and complete. If the 
Secretary cannot make this determination, the Committee directs 
the Department to undertake the following procedures before 
issuing a final rule on avocado imports: (1) APHIS must 
supervise surveys for seed and stem weevils and seed moths at 
the state, municipality, and grove level at least four times 
over the period of one year to establish the distribution, 
density, and seasonality of these quarantine pests; and (2) 
APHIS must supervise the trapping of fruit flies over a minimum 
period of at least one year prior to the approval of any grove 
for export certification.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee has learned that East 
Mississippi and the Lower Rio Grande Valley have voted to 
discontinue the program. In light of these recent programmatic 
changes and current fiscal constraints, the Committee has 
provided a funding level of $16,209,000 for the program, a 
decrease of $1,875,000 below the amount available for fiscal 
year 1996.
    Fruit Fly.--The Committee is concerned about the growing 
number of line-items in the budget regarding fruit flies. In 
the current line-item structure, there are three line-items for 
fruit fly exclusion and detection. The Administration is 
requesting a fourth fruit fly line-item in the budget for 
Mediterranean fruit fly activities in California. The Committee 
has provided a single amount for all fruit fly activities of 
the Department including an increase of $5,000,000 for 
eradication efforts in California. It believes that combining 
these line-items would reduce duplication, provide the Agency 
with increased flexibility to meet program demands, and 
streamline overall program efforts.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee includes $200,000, the 
same as the fiscal year 1996 level, for ongoing work at the 
University of Arkansas at Monticello for fire ant control 
methods and dissemination of information to the public. The 
Committee expects APHIS to establish a working group with state 
departments of agriculture, research universities, and private 
industry to address prioritizing research needs of various fire 
ant problems.
    Noxious Weeds.--The Committee expects APHIS to continue 
funding for eradication of orobanche ramosa in Texas.
    Research.--The Committee recognizes that the Agricultural 
Research Service (ARS) serves the priority needs of APHIS in 
plant and animal pest control and eradication activities. The 
Committee expects APHIS to work directly with ARS to establish 
research priority needs of the agency for fiscal year 1997.
    Horse Protection Act.--The Committee expects the Department 
to use its existing authority under the Horse Protection Act to 
delegate primary responsibility for conducting horse show 
inspections and other related enforcement activities to USDA-
certified horse industry organizations that meet or exceed 
Department criteria for industry self-regulation.
    The Department has purchased thermovision devices for 
diagnostic and enforcement purposes. The Committee has learned 
that these devices may represent an untested technology which 
the scientific community has determined to be unreliable. The 
Committee requests a report by December 1, 1996 responding to 
these concerns, and reporting the Department's progress in 
establishing the industry self-regulation policies described 
above.
    The Committee expects APHIS to report to the Congress 
within 60 days regarding efforts it is making to ensure that 
injurious exotic animal and plant diseases and pests are not 
introduced into this country. The report should include the 
rate of increase of plant and pest diseases that have entered 
this nation. The report should also indicate the source of the 
karnal bunt infestation and the department's efforts to obtain 
compensation from the source. The agency should also indicate 
how it will insure that seed and germplasm imported in the 
United States is protected from disease.

                        Buildings and Facilities

1996 appropriation......................................      $8,757,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       3,200,000
Provided in the bill....................................       3,200,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -5,557,000
    1997 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 
$3,200,000, a decrease of $5,557,000 below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service
                           Marketing Services
1996 appropriation......................................     $46,517,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      48,311,000
Provided in the bill....................................      37,592,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -8,925,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -10,719,000

    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 $37,592,000, 
a decrease of $8,925,000 below the amount available for fiscal 
year 1996 and $10,719,000 below the budget request.
    The total amount does not include funding to continue the 
pesticide data program initiated in fiscal year 1991 in 
response to the Alar scare in apples. The program has proven 
that there are very low levels of residues on fruits and 
vegetables tested, levels well under the established EPA 
tolerances. The Committee has provided increases to this agency 
as well as to the Economic Research Service, the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service, and the Agriculture Research 
Service in support of integrated pest management activities. 
Included in the total appropriation for AMS is the budget 
request of $1,184,000 for pesticide recordkeeping. In these 
times of declining budgets and fiscal restraints it becomes 
necessary to prioritize activities. The Committee supports 
integrated pest management and believes redirecting shrinking 
Federal dollars into this area would be more beneficial and 
cost effective.
    The Committee has learned that several states, such as 
California, New York, and Texas, have reduced or eliminated the 
state contribution to the cooperative Federal-state market news 
program. This has resulted in greater pressure on the Federal 
program to fill the critical gaps in reporting needed to 
develop national market perspectives. The Committee has 
included funds so the agency can continue to provide accurate 
and timely market information for all agriculture producers, 
traders, and consumers.
    The Committee provides language to allow for the collection 
of fees for the development of standards.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

1996 limitation.........................................   ($58,461,000)
1997 budget limitation..................................    (59,012,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (59,012,000)
Comparison:
    1996 limitation.....................................      (+551,000)
    1997 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 
$59,012,000, an increase of $551,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and the same amount as the budget request.

          Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply

                              (Section 32)

1996 appropriation......................................     $10,451,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      10,576,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,576,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        +125,000
    1997 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 1995-1997:

         SECTION 32--ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1995-1997        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               FY 1996 current   FY 1997 current
                                                             FY 1995 actual       estimate          estimate    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts)............    $5,789,935,663    $6,263,764,062    $5,923,376,725
Less transfers:                                                                                                 
    Food and Consumer Service.............................    -5,249,077,000    -5,597,858,000    -5,433,753,000
    Commerce Department...................................       -64,765,383       -72,893,162       -66,381,020
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, transfers....................................    -5,313,842,383    -5,670,751,162    -5,500,134,000
                                                           =====================================================
Budget authority..........................................       476,093,280       593,012,900       423,242,705
Unobligated balance available, start of year..............       245,951,017       235,129,235       300,000,000
Recoveries of prior year obligations......................        25,755,147  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Available for obligation..............................       747,799,444       828,142,135       723,242,705
Less obligations:                                                                                               
Commodity procurement:                                                                                          
    Child nutrition purchases.............................       399,876,216       400,000,000       400,000,000
    Emergency surplus removal.............................        96,679,225        31,374,000  ................
    Diversion payments....................................          -300,000  ................  ................
    Disaster relief.......................................           530,000         2,000,000  ................
    Sunflower and cottonseed oil purchase.................  ................        23,900,000        20,300,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, commodity procurement........................       496,785,441       457,274,000       420,300,000
                                                           =====================================================
Administrative funds:                                                                                           
    Commodity purchase service............................         5,907,293         6,106,000         6,155,000
    Marketing agreements and orders.......................         9,977,475        10,451,000        10,576,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, administrative funds.........................        15,884,768        16,557,000        16,731,000
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, direct obligations...........................       512,670,209       491,731,000       437,031,000
      Carryover...........................................       235,129,235       354,311,135       300,000,000
      Return to Treasury..................................  ................        36,411,135         6,511,705
      Unobligated balance available, end of year..........       235,129,235       300,000,000       300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Committee Provisions

    For the marketing agreements and orders program the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$10,576,000, an increase of $125,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and the same amount as the budget request.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

1996 appropriation......................................      $1,200,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       1,200,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,200,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 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 1996 and the same as the budget 
request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         Salaries and Expenses

1996 appropriation......................................     $23,058,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      24,595,000
Provided in the bill....................................      22,728,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        -330,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -1,867,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $22,728,000, a 
decrease of $330,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 
1996 and $1,867,000 below the budget request.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

1996 limitation.........................................   ($42,784,000)
1997 budget limitation..................................    (43,207,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (43,207,000)
Comparison:
    1996 limitation.....................................      (+423,000)
    1997 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 $43,207,000, an increase of 
$423,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 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

1996 appropriation......................................        $440,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         576,000
Provided in the bill....................................         446,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................          +6,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -130,000

    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, an increase of 
$6,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a 
decrease of $130,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee notes that it has recommended full funding of 
the 1997 budget request for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS), over which the Under Secretary has 
responsibility. The request for an additional $136,000 for the 
Under Secretary's office in fiscal year 1997 is to ``strengthen 
the policy guidance and evaluation function . . . within the 
Office of the Under Secretary.'' The Committee believes that 
resources for policy guidance and evaluation are readily 
available in FSIS and there is no need for additional 
bureaucracy within the Office of the Under Secretary.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

1996 appropriation......................................    $544,906,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     574,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     574,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     +29,094,000
    1997 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 $574,000,000, an increase of 
$29,094,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and any other 
appropriate agency to provide the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations an annual report on the incidence of 
foodborne illnesses in the United States. The report should be 
submitted with the annual Administration request for funding 
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
    The Committee believes that the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service must do more to ensure that meat and poultry plant 
owners and managers are held accountable for violations of food 
safety laws and regulations. The Committee urges FSIS to revise 
its Grant-of-Inspection to require from plants expanded 
information about their operations and certification that 
plants are currently complying with food safety laws and 
regulations. The Committee fully supports the recommendations 
made by the Inspector General regarding the FSIS Grant-of-
Inspection.
    The Committee also learned from testimony by the Inspector 
General that plants in violation of food safety practices can 
remain open a substantial amount of time. In these cases, the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service sends in additional 
inspectors to bring the plant into compliance, thereby shifting 
the financial burden of non-compliance to the taxpayer. The 
Committee supports the efforts of the Department to improve its 
methods of compliance assurance and urges the Department to 
consider requesting authorizing legislation to allow the 
assessment of civil penalties where appropriate.
    The Committee notes that the Department has not implemented 
an amendment to the Egg Products Inspection Act which was 
enacted into law in 1991. The amendment was intended to 
establish an average ambient temperature for transportation of 
eggs and egg products in order to inhibit the development of 
Salmonella enteritidis in eggs. The Committee expects the 
Department to issue final regulations to implement this 
amendment or to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House and the Senate, in writing, no later than 30 days 
after the enactment of this legislation, its reason for not 
issuing final regulations and any objections it has to the 1991 
or other relevant legislation. The Committee further expects 
the Department to consult with representatives of the egg 
products industry on this amendment and on any related 
regulations.
    The Committee recognizes that the Agricultural Research 
Service (ARS) serves the priority research needs of FSIS to 
assure safe and wholesome meat and poultry products. The 
Committee directs FSIS to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate the process it uses to 
establish the research priorities of the agency and how it 
communicates those needs to ARS. The report should include the 
priorities established with ARS for fiscal years 1994 through 
1996 and those projected for fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider a joint 
FSIS/APHIS National Farm Animal Identification Pilot Program 
for dairy cows. This project would develop a prototype for a 
national identification system that would track animals from 
farm to farm, farm to market and market to processing unit. The 
prototype would help determine if a national system could be 
administered efficiently and cost-effectively. The Committee 
expects that any funds necessary for this pilot project will be 
paid from funds appropriated in this bill to the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service.
    The Committee notes that the ratite industry is rapidly 
growing in the United States and that the consumption of ratite 
meat and products is growing rapidly as well. Therefore, the 
Committee urges the Department to consider changing the status 
of ratites as exotic animals and including ratite meat and meat 
products in the regular meat and poultry inspection process.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

    Office of The Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

1996 appropriation......................................        $549,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         572,000
Provided in the bill....................................         572,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +23,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign 
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation and crop 
insurance; Office of Risk Management; 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, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.
    Language is included to prohibit the Secretary from 
automatically extending an existing or expiring conservation 
reserve contract. The Committee directs that all acres are to 
be rebid and reevaluated using the same criteria that was used 
during the thirteenth sign-up. Much of the land that was 
enrolled early in the program is marginal at best in terms of 
its environmental sensitivity and is highly productive. The 
Committee believes that by using the criteria of the last 
enrollment period for evaluation of all acres offered for 
extension, the Department will be able to verify that only land 
that represents a conservation benefit to the country is 
enrolled. This way the program will achieve its original goal 
of preventing or controlling critical soil erosion on highly 
erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland and at the same 
time help alleviate current grain shortages.
    The Committee also reaffirms its position that contract 
rates should not exceed the prevailing rental rates for 
comparable land in the local area.

                          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); and several other 
conservation cost-share programs; crop insurance and other risk 
management programs of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; 
and farm ownership and operating, and emergency disaster and 
other loan programs.
    Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 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.
    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 and is designed 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 program activities in direct 
support of the Federal crop insurance program as authorized by 
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994. The Act repealed ad hoc disaster 
authority and replaces disaster bills as the Federal response 
to emergencies involving widespread crop loss. Functions 
included are research and development, insurance services, 
compliance and emergency and noninsured assistance. Included 
are policy formulation, procedures, and regulations 
development. Reviews and evaluations are conducted for overall 
performance to ensure the actuarial soundness of the insurance 
program.

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                                              Transfer from                     
                                                             Appropriation   program accts.     Total, FSA, S&E; 
                                                                                                                
1996 appropriation........................................    $795,000,000    ($209,780,000)    ($1,004,780,000)
1997 budget estimate......................................     820,495,000     (210,891,000)     (1,031,386,000)
Provided in the bill......................................     746,440,000     (209,780,000)       (956,220,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation....................................     -48,560,000  ................       (-48,560,000)
    1997 budget estimate..................................     -74,055,000      (-1,111,000)       (-75,166,000)
                                                                                                                

                          Committee Provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $746,440,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $209,780,000, for a total 
program level of $956,220,000, a decrease of $48,560,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $75,166,000 below 
the budget request. In part the decrease is to cover the 
transfer of activities related to crop insurance to the Office 
of Risk Management.
    The Committee is aware of the significant change in 
workload caused by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996. While there are certainly programs that 
will require less work than previously, there are also clearly 
programs that will cause changes and increases in workload. The 
Committee expects the Department to report periodically during 
the next year as to the changes in workload and the savings 
that can be achieved.
    Language is included to prohibit the Secretary from 
automatically extending an existing or expiring conservation 
reserve contract. The Committee directs that all acres are to 
be rebid and reevaluated using the same criteria that was used 
during the thirteenth sign-up. Much of the land that was 
enrolled early in the program is marginal at best in terms of 
its environmental sensitivity and is highly productive. The 
Committee believes that by using the criteria for the last 
enrollment period for evaluation of all acres offered for 
extension, the Department will be able to verify that only land 
that represents a conservation benefit to the country is 
enrolled. This way the program will achieve its original goal 
of preventing or controlling critical soil erosion on highly 
erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland and at the same 
time help alleviate current grain shortages.
    The Committee also reaffirms its position that contract 
rates should not exceed the prevailing rental rates for 
comparable land in the local area.
    The Committee directs the Department to maintain Farm 
Service Agency automation and accounting support for the farm 
loan programs at the Department's offices in St. Louis, 
Missouri. The Committee is concerned that the St. Louis office 
has not been able to meet required staffing levels due to the 
nationwide hiring freeze. The Committee urges the Farm Service 
Agency to give staff requirements at the St. Louis office a 
high priority. If Reductions-in-Force in FSA field offices are 
necessary due to budget constraints, the Committee expects the 
Department to ensure that federal and nonfederal employees are 
treated equitably.

                         state mediation grants

1996 appropriation......................................      $2,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       3,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -2,000,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -3,000,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    Due to fiscal constraints the Committee defers funding for 
the state mediation grants program. This is $2,000,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $3,000,000 below 
the budget request.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program

1996 appropriation......................................        $100,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         100,000
Provided in the bill....................................         100,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 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 $100,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

        Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers

1996 appropriation......................................      $1,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       3,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................      -2,000,000

    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 
$1,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
1996 and a decrease of $2,000,000 below 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.

                         estimated loan levels

1996 appropriation......................................($3,160,750,000)
1997 budget estimate.................................... (3,196,071,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (2,996,071,000)
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................  (-164,679,000)
    1997 budget estimate................................  (-200,000,000)

    This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm 
ownership, farm operating, soil and water, recreation, and 
emergency. In addition, the fund makes loans to associations 
for irrigation and drainage, grazing, recreation facilities, 
Indian tribe land acquisition, watershed protection, flood 
prevention, and resource conservation and development.
                          committee provisions

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 1997 for the agricultural credit insurance fund 
programs are: $600,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$50,000,000 is for direct loans and $550,000,000 is for 
guaranteed loans; $2,345,071,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $445,071,000 is for direct loans, $200,000,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,700,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $1,000,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for emergency disaster loans; 
and $25,000,000 for credit sales of acquired property.
                      agriculture credit programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1997        Committee  
                                                                   FY 1996 level      request       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:                                                                                             
Farm ownership:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................................        (60,000)        (50,000)        (50,000)
    Guaranteed..................................................       (550,000)       (650,000)       (550,000)
Farm operating:                                                                                                 
    Direct......................................................       (550,000)       (445,071)       (445,071)
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................     (1,700,000)     (1,750,000)     (1,700,000)
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................       (200,000)       (250,000)       (200,000)
Emergency disaster..............................................       (100,000)  ..............        (25,000)
Soil and water:                                                                                                 
    Indian tribe land acquisition...............................           (750)         (1,000)         (1,000)
    Credit sales of acquired property...........................  ..............        (50,000)        (25,000)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................     (3,160,750)     (3,196,071)     (2,996,071)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                                                                
                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses   
                                                                                                                
1996 appropriation...........................................     $121,505,000      $56,339,000     $221,541,000
1997 budget estimate.........................................       70,184,000       68,940,000      222,091,000
Provided in the bill.........................................       76,184,000       59,745,000      221,046,000
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation.......................................       -6,000,000       -3,406,000         -495,000
    1997 budget estimate.....................................      -45,321,000       -9,195,000       -1,045,000
                                                                                                                

    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 1997, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee   
                                                             FY 1996 enacted   FY 1997 request     provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
  Farm ownership:                                                                                               
    Direct................................................        14,034,000         5,920,000         5,920,000
    Guaranteed............................................        20,019,000        26,065,000        22,055,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        34,053,000        31,985,000        27,975,000
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:                                                                                               
    Direct................................................        75,185,000        59,150,000        59,150,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        18,360,000        19,775,000        19,210,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................        17,960,000        23,100,000        18,480,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................       111,505,000       102,025,000        96,840,000
                                                           =====================================================
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................           206,000            54,000            54,000
Emergency disaster........................................        32,080,000  ................         6,365,000
Credit sales of acquired property.........................  ................         5,060,000         2,530,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................       177,844,000       139,124,000       133,764,000
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:                                                                                                  
  Salaries and expenses...................................       208,935,000       209,485,000       208,446,000
  Administrative expenses.................................        12,606,000        12,606,000        12,600,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................       399,385,000       361,215,000       221,046,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Office of Risk Management

1996 appropriation......................................................
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................     $62,198,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of Risk Management the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $62,198,000. In fiscal year 1996 the 
activities of this office were performed as part of the Farm 
Service Agency.
    The House Appropriations Committee directs the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation to implement changes to the peach 
coverage in Georgia that utilizes actual production history of 
the growers in Georgia and, where appropriate, uses current 
University of Georgia Research and Extension data. This actual 
production history should be developed by variety/by age/by 
location, consistent with sound underwriting and actuarial 
principles. Location may be determined by tree age and density, 
county, or a ``T Yield Map Area''.

                              Corporations

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

1996 appropriation......................................  $1,263,708,000
1997 budget estimate....................................   1,591,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................           (\1\)
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Bill provides such sums as necessary.


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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, 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 
their 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 seven-year production flexibility contracts are offered 
to eligible landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 
1996, with some contracts being available in subsequent years 
for eligible contract-commodity acreage in the CRP program 
that, prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the 
contract expires. Statutorily established fixed dollar amounts 
are to be distributed annually among contract participants 
according to statutory formulas. With the exception of 
limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be 
planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract acreage 
must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract 
participants must comply with applicable land conservation and 
wetland protection requirements.
    Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of 
ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to 
producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of 
such commodities are contract participants. Marketing loan 
provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all 
such commodities except ELS cotton.
    The peanut loan program, as provided by the 1996 Act, is 
accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the 
1938 Act, as amended by the 1996 Act. The loan rate for quota 
peanuts is set at $610 per ton for each of the crop years, 1996 
through 2002. The quota poundage floor (1.35 million tons in 
1995) authorized by the 1938 Act for 1995 is eliminated for the 
1996 through 2002 crops. The 1996 Act also amends the peanut 
provisions of the 1938 Act pertaining to undermarketings of 
farm quotas and transfers of quotas across county lines.
    The 1996 Act created a recourse loan program for sugar that 
reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if 
the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million 
short tons (raw value) in any fiscal year 1997 through 2002. 
The 1996 Act suspends marketing allotment provisions in the 
1938 Act and implements a one-cent per pound penalty if cane 
sugar pledged as collateral for a Corporation loan is 
forfeited. A similar penalty applies to beet sugar.
    The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 Act is 
supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by 
the 1938 Act. The tobacco program provisions in both Acts were 
not affected by the 1996 Act.
    Milk prices are supported each year through the end of 
calendar year 1999 at statutorily established levels through 
purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar 
year 1996 support level is $10.35 per hundredweight for milk 
containing 3.67 percent butterfat, and the rate declines 
annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999. A 
recourse loan program for commercial processors of dairy 
products begins on January 1, 2000. The recourse loan rate is 
to be established for eligible dairy products at a level that 
reflects a milk equivalent value of $9.90 per hundredweight of 
milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
    The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after 
October 1, 1996, will be 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. Moreover, the 
Corporation's use of funds for purchases of information 
technology equipment, including computers, is more restricted 
than it was prior to enactment of the 1996 Act.
    The 1996 Act amends the 1985 Act to establish the 
environmental conservation acreage reserve program (ECARP), 
which encompasses the conservation reserve program (CRP), the 
wetlands reserve program (WRP), and the environmental quality 
incentives program (EQIP). Each of these programs is funded 
through the Corporation.
    CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4 
million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that 
are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary 
is to allow participants to terminate any CRP contract entered 
into prior to January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided 
the contract has been in effect for at least 5 years. The 
Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future 
early outs and future sign-ups of lands that meet enrollment 
eligibility criteria.
    WRP is reauthorized through fiscal year 2002, not to exceed 
975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996, 
one-third of the land enrolled will be in permanent easements, 
one-third 30-year easements or less, and one-third wetland 
restoration agreements with cost sharing. Seventy-five thousand 
acres of land in less than permanent easements must be placed 
in the program before any additional permanent easements are 
placed.
    A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established 
to assist crop and livestock producers in dealing with 
environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. One-
half of the available funds are for addressing conservation 
problems associated with livestock operations and one-half for 
other conservation concerns. Five- to ten-year contracts, based 
on a conservation plan, will be used to implement the program. 
EQIP is to be phased in over the first six months following 
passage of the 1996 Act. At the end of that time, authority for 
the agricultural conservation program, the Colorado River basin 
salinity control program, the water quality incentives program, 
and the Great Plains conservation program is to be terminated.
    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. The fiscal year 1988 Appropriations Act, P.L. 100-
202, increased the statutory borrowing authority from $25 
billion 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 price 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 use for such commodities.
          (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural 
        commodities.
          (g) Carry out such other operations as the Congress 
        may specifically authorize or provide.

                 Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses

1996 appropriation...................................... $10,400,000,000
1997 budget estimate.................................. \1\ 1,500,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................   1,500,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................  -8,900,000,000
    1997 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 $1,500,000,000, a 
decrease of $8,900,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

       Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management

1996 appropriation......................................    ($5,000,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................    (15,750,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     (5,000,000)
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................   (-10,750,000)

    The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) hazardous waste 
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, as amended.
    In 1996, 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 1996 and a 
decrease of $10,750,000 below the budget request.
                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

1996 appropriation......................................        $677,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         693,000
Provided in the bill....................................         693,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +16,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    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, an increase of $16,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was 
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Federal Crop 
Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). Through the years, this Service, 
together with the agricultural conservation programs and over 2 
million conservation district cooperatives, has been a major 
factor in holding down pollution. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service works with conservation districts, 
watershed groups, and Federal and state agencies having related 
responsibilities in water resources, to provide for 
agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce damage 
caused by flood and sedimentation. The NRCS, with its dams, 
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical 
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the 
Federal government pays about one-third of the cost, and, 
through these programs, has done perhaps more to hold down 
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water and 
sewage systems in rural areas tend to hold pollution back from 
the areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our 
cities.
    The watershed improvement programs of the Department of 
Agriculture were initiated by the authorization of planning and 
works of improvement on the original 11 major watersheds 
covered by the Flood Control Act of 1944. In 1953, the 
Committee provided $5,000,000 in the 1954 Appropriations Act, 
without a prior budget estimate, to authorize 62 small 
``pilot'' watershed projects to promote national interest in 
small upstream watershed control. These pilot projects were a 
tremendous success. The following year, the 83rd Congress 
enacted Public Law 566, which placed this program on a 
permanent basis. Under the authority of section 8 of this same 
Act, as amended, loans to local organizations were authorized 
to help defray a portion of the local share of the cost of 
watershed protection and flood prevention projects. These 
programs are now financed through two appropriations designated 
as ``watershed surveys and planning,'' and ``watershed and 
flood prevention operations.''

                        Conservation Operations

1996 appropriation......................................    $629,986,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     662,910,000
Provided in the bill....................................     619,392,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -10,594,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -43,518,000

    The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain 
agricultural productivity and protect and enhance the natural 
resource base. This is done through providing technical 
assistance 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, as amended by 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 $619,392,000, a decrease of -$10,594,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and -$43,518,000 
below the budget request. The total includes a $10,000,000 
increase for the Service Center Field Consolidation Plan. The 
total also includes an increase of $5,000,000 to enhance the 
grazing land conservation assistance program begun in fiscal 
year 1996. The total does not include funding for technical 
assistance to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, the 
Agricultural Conservation Program, and the Water Quality 
Incentives Program. These programs are now included as part of 
the new mandatory Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
(EQIP) that was created in the recently enacted Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The Committee 
expects the agency's cost of providing technical assistance to 
EQIP will be fully funded within the program, as provided by 
law. The Department is in the process of writing the rules and 
regulations to carryout the new Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP).
    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
funds the wetlands reserve program (WRP) and the conservation 
reserve program (CRP) from funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC). The law also provides that the funds 
available for these programs are to be used for technical 
assistance. It has come to the attention of the Committee that 
the General Counsel of USDA is leaning towards a decision that 
a provision in the FAIR Act to prohibit the use of CCC funds to 
pay for ADP software and hardware may apply to the 
reimbursement for technical assistance needed to operate these 
important environmental programs. The law clearly states that 
funding for these programs is to cover technical assistance. A 
decision to not allow the agency to be reimbursed for the cost 
of providing technical assistance to these programs places a 
tremendous burden on the salaries and expenses account of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. This will force the agency to choose between 
providing technical assistance to these programs or providing 
technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and communities. The 
Committee is a strong supporter of protecting the nations 
natural resources and believes WRP and CRP need to continue. 
The Committee also believes that the CCC provision in the FAIR 
Act was not intended to apply to the technical assistance 
needed to implement these conservation programs.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to continue to promote 
pastureland management and rotational grazing in central New 
York.
    The Committee provides $250,000 to continue work on the 
Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds in establishing 
best management practices to individual farmers to reduce the 
impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of pollution.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to continue work on the 
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment 
Control.
    The Committee is aware of and urges the agency to continue 
its support for the Adams County, Iowa, Conservation Reserve 
Program Research Farm.
    The Committee provides $400,000 to continue work on the 
Hungry Canyon erosion control project in Iowa. The agency 
should coordinate its work with the Loess Hills Development and 
Conservation Authority.
    The Committee provides $350,000 for technical assistance to 
the Embarras River watershed project.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for technical assistance to 
the Westchester Soil and Water Conservation District for a 
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency to address 
land use and water quality issues affecting the Long Island 
Sound.
    The Committee expects the work being conducted at the Rice 
Research Station in Louisiana be continued at the same level as 
fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee provides $100,000 to complete the program 
initiated in fiscal year 1996 between the agency and Pace 
University to address the watershed needs of the lower Hudson 
Valley.
    Funding for the water quality incentives program is now 
included under the environmental quality incentives program. 
The Committee expects both a demonstration project to reduce 
atrazine levels in lakes in Macoupin County, Illinois and a 
project to assist farmers surrounding Lake Otisco in central 
New York in implementing best management practices to continue 
at the fiscal year 1996 levels.
    The Committee has included a limitation that will allow 
130,000 additional acres to be added to the wetlands reserve 
program. Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 
1992, over 400,000 acres have been enrolled either through the 
normal process or on an emergency basis. The Committee 
continues to believe that its actions of limiting the number of 
acres allowed into the program each year results in the most 
cost-effective and environmentally sensitive land being 
accepted into the program.
    Based upon the findings of the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service's (NRCS) comprehensive study of the Lower 
Embarras River Watershed located in central and southern 
Illinois, the Committee urges the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) to fund through the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Conservation 
Reserve Program, Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, 
Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Initiative, Forestry 
Incentives Program (FIP), Flood Risk Reduction, and other USDA 
resources a coordinated resource management plan to fully 
address and correct the needs of this region. Based upon the 
findings of the NRCS's report, the Committee believes that the 
Lower Embarras River Watershed conforms to the characteristics 
of a ``Conservation Priority Area'' as defined by the 1996 Farm 
Bill, and therefore, deserves appropriate attention by the 
Department.

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

1996 appropriation......................................\1\ $100,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     116,036,000
Provided in the bill....................................     101,036,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      +1,036,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -15,000,000

\1\ Does not include 1996 supplemental funding of $80,514,000.

    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 between the Federal government 
and the states and their political subdivisions in a program to 
prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the 
watersheds or rivers and streams, and to further the 
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water.
    The work of the Department under this item includes 
technical and 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; and making 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 $101,036,000, an increase of 
$1,036,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
a decrease of $15,000,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee does not provide the budget request for emergency 
watershed protection operations. Additional funding for 
emergency watershed and flood prevention operations was 
included in the fiscal year 1996 Supplemental Appropriations 
Bill.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
on the following project: Lake Carlinville, Illinois; and 
Virgil Creek watershed, Cortland and Tompkins Counties, New 
York.

                 resource conservation and development

1996 appropriation......................................     $29,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      29,377,000
Provided in the bill....................................      29,377,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................        +377,000
    1997 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 $29,377,000, an increase of 
$377,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
the same as the budget request.

                      forestry incentives program

1996 appropriation......................................      $6,325,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       6,325,000
Provided in the bill....................................       6,325,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

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

                          committee provisions

    For the forestry incentives program the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $6,325,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget 
request.

                     Watershed Surveys and Planning

1996 appropriation......................................     $14,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      19,188,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,762,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -3,238,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -8,426,000

    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 for coordination of this development with downstream and 
other phases of water development.
    Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation 
between the Federal government and the states and their 
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. 
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of 
improvement of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and 
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and 
streams and to further the conservation, development, 
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department 
of 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 program the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $10,762,000, a decrease of 
$3,238,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
$8,426,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects progress to continue to complete the 
Upper Trinity River Basin cooperative study; the Zuni River 
watershed study; Rockhouse Creek, Leslie County, Kentucky; and 
Troublesome Creek, Knott County, Kentucky.

       National Natural Resources Conservation Service Foundation

1996 appropriation......................................................
1997 budget estimate..........................................  $500,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate......................................  -500,000

    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(P.L. 104-127) established a new nongovernmental National 
Natural Resources Conservation Service Foundation as a 
charitable and nonprofit corporation for scientific, 
charitable, and educational purposes. The Foundation may 
receive appropriations for three years to facilitate its 
establishment. The Foundation is authorized to promote 
partnerships between government and private interests in the 
promotion of natural resources on private lands.

                          committee provisions

    There are over 560 conservation organizations listed in the 
1994 Conservation Directory published by the National Wildlife 
Federation. Many of these have similar if not exactly the same 
main goal as the proposed Foundation. The Committee notes that 
the authorization provides that the Secretary may appoint the 
Foundation Board and the initial executive director. The 
Committee provides no funds to establish this grant or to 
provide any funds in this Act to carry out 16 U.S.C. 5806. The 
authorization is specific in describing the Foundation as a 
charitable and nonprofit foundation. The authorization further 
states that the Foundation is not an agency or instrumentality 
of the United States and, as such, the Committee believes no 
Federal funds should be used in the establishment and operation 
of this Foundation.
      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing 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 
the United States providing loan and grant assistance for 
single family and multi-family housing, special housing needs, 
a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business 
development programs.

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

1996 appropriation......................................        $568,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         588,000
Provided in the bill....................................         588,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +20,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $588,000, an 
increase of $20,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 
1996 and the same as the budget request. P.L. 104-127 changes 
the name of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and 
Community Development to the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development.

                       rural assistance programs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1997        Committee  
                                                                   FY 1996 level      request       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Assistance Program:                                                                                       
    Rural Housing Assistance Program............................  ..............     \1\ 136,435          73,190
    Rural Utilities Assistance Program..........................  ..............         661,560         523,868
    Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program...............  ..............          52,274          51,400
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, RPPP...............................................  ..............         860,269         648,458
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $10,000,000 for a Community Facility Grant Program submitted by the Administration on May 16, 1996 
  as an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 budget request.                                                       

                 rural performance partnership program

    The Administration proposes the consolidation of 14 rural 
development programs into the Rural Performance Partnership 
Program (RPPP) in order to provide greater flexibility to 
tailor financial assistance to applicant needs. The 
consolidation creates three funding streams, one for housing, 
one for utilities and one for business-cooperative development. 
Not all rural development programs administered by the Under 
Secretary for Rural Development are included in the RPPP. Some 
programs would continue to be administered individually.
    Funding for the RPPP would be allocated to state rural 
development directors for their priority-setting on a state-by-
state basis. These directors would work in consultation with 
state, local, and tribal officials, including the State Rural 
Development Councils, to direct funds to the highest rural 
economic development priorities in each state. State directors 
would be authorized to transfer up to 25 percent of partnership 
funds allocated to their states among the participating 
programs, with up to ten percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Because of severe budget constraints, the Committee 
believes that the concept of the Rural Performance Partnership 
offers the most practical way of using scarce resources while 
allowing state directors the flexibility to address local and 
individual needs. The Department has informed the Committee 
that the consolidation of funding for rural utilities provided 
in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill under the name 
Rural Utilities Assistance Program has been successful.
    Accordingly, the Committee is providing three funding 
streams for housing, business-economic development, and 
utilities and including several programs in addition to the 14 
proposed by the Administration. The three funding streams are 
designated as the Rural Housing Assistance Program, the Rural 
Business-Cooperative Assistance Program and the Rural Utilities 
Assistance Program. The last of these was funded in the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill.

                         Rural Housing Service

    The Rural Housing Service (RHS) was established under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994 (Public Law 
103-354).
    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 to: (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

1996 loan level.........................................($2,940,163,000)
1997 budget estimate.................................... (3,806,336,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (3,459,854,000)
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................    +519,691,000
     1997 budget estimate...............................    -346,482,000

    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 and low-income persons in rural 
areas. These loans are repayable in not to exceed 50 years. 
Farm labor housing insured loans are made either to a farm 
owner or to a public or private nonprofit organization to 
provide modest living quarters and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Loan programs are limited to rural areas 
which include towns, villages, and other places of not more 
than 10,000 population, which are not part of an urban area. 
Loans may also be made in areas with a population in excess of 
10,000 but less than 20,000, if the area is not included in a 
standard metropolitan statistical area and has a serious lack 
of mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

                          Committee Provisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                           FY 1996 level     FY 1997 request       provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:                                                                   
    Low-income family housing (sec. 502):                                                                       
        Direct.........................................    \1\ (1,034,965)        (1,320,000)        (1,000,000)
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................        (1,700,000)        (2,300,000)        (2,300,000)
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................          (150,000)           (58,654)           (58,654)
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................       \1\ (38,995)           (35,000)          (35.0040)
    Farm labor (sec. 514)..............................           (15,000)           (16,482)           (15,000)
    Credit sales of acquired property..................  .................           (75,000)           (50,000)
    Site loans (sec. 524)..............................              (600)              (600)              (600)
    Self-help housing land developmentfund.............              (603)              (600)              (600)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF......................................        (2,940,163)        (3,806,336)        (3,459,854)
                                                        ========================================================
Rural Housing Service Grants and Payments:                                                                      
    Very low-income housing repair grants..............         \1\ 26,000  .................  .................
    Rural housing for domestic labor...................             10,000  .................  .................
    Mutual and self-help housing.......................             12,650             26,000             26,000
    Compensation for construction defects..............                495  .................  .................
    Rural housing preservation grants..................             11,000  .................  .................
    Rental assistance..................................            540,900            493,870            493,870
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Housing Grants and Payments.........            601,045            519,870            519,870
                                                        ========================================================
      Total, RHS Loans and Grants......................        (3,818,208)        (4,326,206)       (3,979,724) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 1996 supplemental funding of $34,965 for section 502, $3,995 for section 504 very low-income       
  housing repair loans, and $1,100 for very low-income housing repair grants.                                   

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Direct loan     Guaranteed    Administrative
                                                                      subsidy      loan subsidy       expenses  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 appropriation \1\..........................................    $257,221,000      $2,890,000    $385,889,000
1997 budget estimate............................................     163,308,000       6,210,000     366,205,000
Provided in the bill............................................     134,020,000       6,210,000     366,205,000
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation..........................................    -123,201,000      +3,320,000     -19,684,000
    1997 budget estimate........................................     -29,288,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1996 appropriation includes funds for the self-help housing land development fund because this program  
  is included in this account in 1997.                                                                          

    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 1997, as well 
as for administrative expenses.
                          Committee Provisions

    The following table reflects the cost of the loan programs 
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal 
year 1996 amount reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as 
set by OMB.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 1996         FY 1997        Committee  
                                                                      enacted         request       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:                                                                                                 
  Single family (sec. 502):                                                                                     
    Direct......................................................     \1\ 150,833         109,560          83,000
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................           2,890           6,210           6,210
Housing repair (sec. 504).......................................      \1\ 15,693          11,081          11,081
Farm labor (sec. 514)...........................................           8,629           7,565           6,885
Rental housing (sec. 515).......................................          82,035      \2\ 28,987          28,987
Credit sales of acquired property...............................  ..............           6,098           4,050
Self-help housing land development fund.........................              31              17              17
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.......................................         260,111         169,518         140,230
RHIF expenses:                                                                                                  
    Administrative expenses.....................................         385,889         366,205         366,205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 1996 supplemental funding of $5,000 for section 502 and $1,500 for section 504 for very low-income 
  repair.                                                                                                       
\2\ Funding for rental housing section 515 new construction is included in the RPPP request.                    

                       Rental Assistance Program

1996 appropriation......................................    $540,900,000
1997 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 493,870,000
Provided in the bill....................................     493,870,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -47,030,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Funding for the portion of rental assistance payments supporting 
rental housing section 515 new construction is included in the RPPP 
request.

    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 renew expiring contracts. Remaining funding will be 
used for projects receiving new construction commitments under 
sections 514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families with 
certain limitations and to provide additional rental assistance 
units to existing projects.

                          Committee Provisions

    For rental assistance for renewal units the Committee 
provides a program level of $493,870,000, a decrease of 
$47,030,000 below the fiscal year 1996 level and the same 
amount as the budget request. Of the amount provided, 
$487,970,000 is available for section 521 rental assistance and 
$5,900,000 is for the section 502 (c)(5)(D) program.

                        Community Facility Loans

1996 loan level.........................................  ($275,000,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    This fund created by the Rural Development Act of 1972 
finances a variety of rural community facilities.
    Loans are made to organizations, including certain Indian 
tribes and corporations not operated for profit and public and 
quasi-public 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, 
community, social, and cultural 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.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for the community facility 
loans program is provided in the rural housing assistance 
program.

                 Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants

1996 appropriation...................................... \1\ $24,900,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      24,900,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

\1\ Does not include 1996 supplemental funding of $1,100,000.

    This grant program is authorized under section 504 of title 
V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The rural housing 
repair grant program is carried out by making grants to very 
low-income elderly owner-occupants to make necessary repairs to 
their homes in order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, 
and remove hazards to the health of the occupants, their 
families, or the community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $5,000 and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons, who are 62 years of age or older.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for grants for very low-
income housing repair grants is provided in the rural housing 
assistance program.

                 Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor

1996 appropriation......................................     $10,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    Financial assistance in the form of grants is authorized to 
public or private nonprofit organizations or other eligible 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor.
    Under section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural 
Housing Service is authorized to share with states or other 
political subdivisions, public or private nonprofit 
organizations, or nonprofit organizations of farm workers, the 
cost of providing low-rent housing, basic household 
furnishings, and related facilities to be used by domestic farm 
laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or seasonal 
occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or 
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and 
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials. Grant 
assistance may not exceed 90 percent of the total development 
cost. Applicants furnish as much of the development cost as 
they can afford by using their own resources, by borrowing 
either directly from private sources, or by obtaining an 
insured loan under section 514 of the Housing Act. The 
applicant must agree to charge rentals which do not exceed 
amounts approved by the Secretary, maintain the housing at all 
times in a safe and sanitary condition, and give occupancy 
preference to domestic farm laborers.
    The obligations incurred by the applicant as a condition of 
the grant continue for 50 years from the date of the grant 
unless sooner terminated by the Rural Housing Service. Grant 
obligations are secured by a mortgage of the housing or other 
security. In the event of default, the Rural Housing Service 
has the option to require repayment of the grant.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for grants for rural housing 
for domestic farm labor is provided in the rural housing 
assistance program.

                  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants

1996 appropriation......................................     $12,650,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      26,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................      26,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     +13,350,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    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 $26,000,000, an increase of 
$13,350,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
the same amount as the budget request.

                 Rural Community Fire Protection Grants

1996 appropriation......................................      $2,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    Rural community fire protection grants are authorized by 
section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. 
Grants are made to public bodies to organize, train, and equip 
local firefighting forces, including those of Indian tribes or 
other native groups, to prevent, control, and suppress fires 
threatening human lives, crops, livestock, farmsteads or other 
improvements, pastures, orchards, wildlife, rangeland, 
woodland, and other resources in rural areas.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for rural community fire 
protection grants is provided in the rural housing assistance 
program.

                   Rural Housing Preservation Grants

1996 appropriation......................................     $11,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    Section 522 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
1983 authorized the Rural Housing Service to administer a 
program of home repair directed at low- and very low-income 
people.
    The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the 
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the 
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible 
applicants compete on a state-by-state basis for grant funds. 
These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or 
grants to finance home repair. The program is administered by 
local grantees.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for grants for rural housing 
preservation is provided in the rural housing assistance 
program.

                    community facility grant program

1996 appropriation......................................................
1997 budget estimate....................................     $10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    This new grant program, authorized in the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 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.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for community facility grants 
is provided for in the rural housing assistance program.

                    rural housing assistance program

                       [In thousands of dollars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Budget         Committee   
                                                                Program  level     authority        provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOANS:                                                                                                          
    Community facility:                                                                                         
        Direct...............................................         $200,000          $14,880  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................          100,000              410  ...............
    Rural Rental Housing--New construction...................          150,000           62,115  ...............
    Multi-family guarantee...................................  ...............  ...............                 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.............................................          450,000           77,405  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
GRANTS:                                                                                                         
    Rural rental assistance payments.........................           47,030           47,030  ...............
    Rural community fire protection..........................            2,000            2,000  ...............
    Community facility grants................................           10,000           10,000  ...............
    Domestic farm labor......................................           10,000           10,000  ...............
    Very low-income housing repair...........................           24,900           24,900  ...............
    Rural housing preservation...............................           11,000           11,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Grants.......................................          104,930          104,930  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, RHAP............................................          554,930          182,335          $73,190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Program (RHAP) the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $73,190,000, a decrease 
of $109,145,000 below the budget request. The programs of this 
account were funded separately in fiscal year 1996. On May 16, 
the Administration submitted an amendment to the fiscal year 
1997 budget request which would create a Community Facility 
Grant Program which is a new program. The Administration has 
requested $10,000,000 in budget authority for this program. The 
Committee has included this request in the RHAP.
    The Committee provides no funds for new construction under 
the Section 515 multi-family rural rental housing program. The 
Special Investigations Staff of the Committee and the 
Department's Inspector General have identified serious problems 
of waste and profiteering in this program which have existed 
for several years. The Committee believes that no additional 
funds should be available until these problems are addressed in 
legislation. Funds for building rehabilitation under Section 
515 are provided in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program 
Account.
    The Committee also provides bill language for an earmark of 
$1,200,000 of the funds provided for the cost of subsidies for 
the multi-family rural housing guarantee program. This program 
began in fiscal year 1996 as a demonstration program. The 
Administration estimates that $1,200,000 in subsidy will 
provide for a loan level of $30,000,000.
    The Committee also provides bill language for an earmark of 
$1,200,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities.

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                             Administrative                                     
                                                                expenses          Transfers      Total expenses 
                                                                                                                
1996 level................................................       $46,583,000    ($385,976,000)    ($432,559,000)
1997 budget estimate......................................        89,660,000     (366,205,000)     (455,865,000)
Provided in the bill......................................        53,889,000     (366,205,000)     (420,094,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 level............................................        +7,306,000     (-19,771,000)     (-12,465,000)
    1997 budget estimate..................................       -35,771,000  ................     (-35,771,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Housing Service the 
Committee provides $53,889,000 an increase of $7,306,000 over 
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$35,771,000 below the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

    The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) was 
established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated 
October 13, 1994 (Public Law 103-354).
    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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1997        Committee  
                                                                   FY 1996 level      request       provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:                                                                             
Rural business and industry loans program:                                                                      
    Direct and guaranteed.......................................       (500,000)       (800,000)     \1\ RB-CAP 
    Rural development loan fund.................................        (37,544)        (80,000)        (40,000)
    Rural economic development loans............................        (12,865)        (14,000)        (12,865)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, RBCS loans.........................................       (550,409)       (894,000)        (52,865)
                                                                 ===============================================
Grants:                                                                                                         
  Rural business enterprise grants..............................         45,000          45,000      \1\ RB-CAP 
  Rural technology and cooperative development..................          2,300           3,000      \1\ RB-CAP 
  Alternative agricultural research and commercialization.......          6,000           6,975           6,000 
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, RBCS grants........................................         53,800          54,975           6,000 
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, RBCS loans and grants..............................       (604,209)       (948,975)        (58,865)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program.                                                          

           Rural Business and Industry Loans Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level

1996 loan level.........................................  ($500,000,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    This fund, created by the Rural Development Act of 1972, 
finances a variety of rural industrial development loans.
    Rural Industrialization Loans.--Makes loans for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industry 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 start-up 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.
    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 1996, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for the rural business and 
industry loans program account is provided in the rural 
business-cooperative assistance program.

              Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level

1996 loan level.........................................   ($37,544,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................    (80,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (40,000,000)
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................      +2,456,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -40,000,000

    The rural development loans 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, and others 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 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the rural development loan fund program account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $40,000,000, an increase 
of $2,456,000 over the loan level for fiscal year 1996 and a 
decrease of $40,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee also provides bill language for an earmark of 
$3,345,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1996 appropriation................        $22,395,000           $476,000
1997 budget estimate..............         36,928,000          1,476,000
Provided in the bill..............         18,400,000  .................
Comparison:.......................                                      
    1996 appropriation............         -4,535,000         -1,476,000
    1997 budget estimate..........        -18,528,000         -1,476,000
                                                                        

            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account

                          Estimated Loan Level

1996 loan level.........................................   ($12,865,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................    (14,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................    (12,865,000)
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................    (-1,135,000)

    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 RBCS 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 fiscal year 1997 the Committee provides a loan level of 
$12,865,000 for the Rural Economic Development Loans Program 
Account, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996 and a 
decrease of $1,135,000 below the budget request.

       Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1996 appropriation................         $3,729,000           $654,000
1997 budget estimate..............          3,095,000            699,000
Provided in the bill..............          2,830,000            654,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1996 appropriation............           -899,000  .................
    1997 budget estimate..........           -265,000            -45,000
                                                                        

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund

                         Cooperative Agreements

1996 appropriation......................................      $6,500,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       6,975,000
Provided in the bill....................................       6,000,000
Comparison:.............................................
    1996 appropriation..................................        -500,000
     1997 budget estimate...............................        -975,000

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

                          Committee Provisions

    For the alternative agricultural research and 
commercialization revolving fund the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $6,000,000, a decrease of $500,000 below the 
amount provided for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $975,000 
below the budget request.
    P.L. 104-127 establishes an Alternative Agricultural 
Research and Commercialization Corporation to manage the 
revolving fund.

                    Rural Business Enterprise Grants

1996 appropriation......................................     $45,000,000
1997 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    This program was authorized by the Rural Development Act of 
1972. Grants are made to public bodies and non-profit 
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.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for the rural business 
enterprise grants program is provided in the rural business-
cooperative assistance program.

          Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Grants

1996 appropriation......................................      $2,300,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       1,300,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    This grant program is authorized by section 310(f) of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended by 
section 2347 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform Act of 1996. These grants are made available to 
public bodies and nonprofit organizations to fund the 
establishment and operation of centers for rural technology or 
cooperative development with their primary purpose being the 
improvement of economic conditions in rural areas. Funds are 
used to promote the development (through technological 
innovation, cooperative development, and adaptation of existing 
technology) and commercialization of new services and products 
that can be produced or provided in rural areas; new processes 
that can be utilized in the production of products in rural 
areas; and new enterprises that add value to on-farm production 
through processing or marketing. The Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service proposes to fund up to 75 percent of the project cost 
while requiring the applicant's contribution be at least 25 
percent which must be cash from non-Federal sources.

                          Committee Provisions

    For fiscal year 1997, funding for rural technology and 
cooperative development grants is provided in the rural 
business-cooperative assistance program.

             rural business-cooperative assistance program

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Budget         Committee   
                                                                Program  level     authority        provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOANS:                                                                                                          
    Business and industry:                                                                                      
        Direct...............................................           50,000  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................          750,000            7,050  ...............
    Intermediary relending program...........................           80,000           36,928  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loans...........................................          880,000           43,978  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
GRANTS:                                                                                                         
    Rural business enterprise................................           45,000           45,000  ...............
    Rural technology and cooperative development.............            1,700            1,700  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Rural business opportunity...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Grants..........................................           46,700           46,700  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RB-CAP..........................................          926,700           90,678           51,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program 
(RBCAP) the Committee provides an appropriation of $51,400,000, 
a decrease of $39,278,000 below the budget request. This 
program was not funded in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee has provided bill language which earmarks 
$500,000 of the amount provided for the Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program for grants for rural water, 
waste, and transportation technical assistance, the same as 
provided for fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee has provided bill language creating an 
earmark of $3,000,000 for cooperative development and 
cooperative development centers. There is a separate earmark of 
$148,000 for business and industry loans in empowerment zones 
and enterprise communities.

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                                              Transfer from                     
                                                           Appropriation      loan accounts    Total, RB-CS, S&E;
                                                                                                                
1996 level.............................................         $9,013,000      ($16,871,000)      ($25,890,000)
1997 budget estimate...................................         27,068,000          (699,000)       (27,767,000)
Provided in the bill...................................         25,680,000          (654,000)       (26,334,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 level.........................................         16,667,000      (-16,217,000)         (-444,000)
    1997 budget estimate...............................         -1,388,000          (-45,000)       (-1,433,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service the Committee provides a total of $25,680,000, an 
increase of $16,667,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1996 and a decrease of $1,388,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects requesting assistance under the rural 
business enterprise grants program: the Northeast (Minnesota) 
Entrepreneur Fund for technical and financial assistance to 
small businesses; establishment of two regional farmers' 
markets in Southwest Virginia; the LENOWISCO Planning District 
Commission's (Virginia) business incubator project; the 
Southwind Maritime Centre, Mt. Vernon, Indiana, wastewater 
pretreatment facility; completion of a pipeline project for the 
City of Tucumcari, New Mexico Agriculture Industrial Park; the 
University of Scranton (Pennsylvania) Center for Public 
Initiatives business advancement and distance and education 
training infrastructure project; the Rural Community Assistance 
Corporation (California) lending program for child care and 
environmental infrastructure; the Northern Initatives/Suomi 
College (Michigan) workforce training and industrial outreach 
programs; the Kansas City Southern Railway Company/Hopkins 
County (Texas) Industrial Complex rail spur; the Sulphur 
Springs (Texas) wastewater infrastructure for a cultured dairy 
products manufacturing facility; the Vevay-Switzerland County 
(Indiana) revolving loan fund for rural enterprises; the 
University of Illinois/Lincoln Land Community College Rural 
Education and Technology Center; the Tehama Local Development 
Corporation (California) economic development project; and an 
economic development entity for innovative agricultural 
technologies in the Sacramento, California area the Chicanos 
Por La Causa business incubator park in Nogales, Arizona and 
the Southern Kentucky Rural Development Center rural technology 
facility in Somerset, Kentucky in coordination with Kentucky 
Educational Television; the Tulare County (California) farm-to-
market road project; intermodial transportation and technical 
assistance requests for Geyserville and Eureka (California) 
train depots, the Montrose Area Industrial Development Agency, 
Inc. expansion of the industrial park in Bridgewater Township, 
Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and a technical assistance 
request for a Ukiah (California) transportation/business 
development study.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.
                        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.
    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 disposal 
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 and creating jobs. 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

1996 loan level...................................      ($1,405,000,000)
1997 budget estimate..............................       (1,620,000,000)
Provided in the bill..............................         1,445,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1996 loan level...............................           +40,000,000
    1997 budget estimate..........................          -175,000,000
                                                                        

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

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   FY 1996 enacted       FY 1997 request    Committee provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification and telecommunications                                                                    
 loans program account: Loan authorizations:                                                                    
 Direct loans:                                                                                                  
    Electric 5%...............................          (90,000,000)         (125,000,000)         (125,000,000)
    Telecommunications 5%.....................          (70,000,000)          (75,000,000)          (75,000,000)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................         (160,000,000)         (200,000,000)         (200,000,000)
                                               =================================================================
Treasury rate: Telecommunications.............         (300,000,000)         (300,000,000)         (300,000,000)
Muni-rate: Electric...........................         (525,000,000)         (600,000,000)         (525,000,000)
FFB loans:                                                                                                      
    Electric, regular.........................         (300,000,000)         (400,000,000)         (300,000,000)
    Telecommunications........................         (120,000,000)         (120,000,000)         (120,000,000)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................         (420,000,000)         (520,000,000)       (1,245,000,000)
                                               =================================================================
      Total, Loan authorizations..............       (1,405,000,000)       (1,620,000,000)       (1,445,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   FY 1996 enacted       FY 1997 request    Committee provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies: Direct loans:                                                                                   
    Electric 5%...............................            21,168,000             3,625,000             3,625,000
    Telecommunications 5%.....................            13,958,000             1,193,000             1,193,000
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................            35,126,000             4,818,000             4,818,000
                                               =================================================================
Treasury rate: Telecommunications.............                60,000                60,000                60,000
Muni-rate, Electric...........................            56,858,000            32,280,000            28,245,000
FFB loans, Regular Electric...................             2,520,000             3,720,000             2,790,000
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies...................            94,564,000            40,878,000            35,913,000
                                               =================================================================
RETLP administrative expenses.................            29,982,000            33,070,000            29,982,000
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural electrification and                                                                          
       telecommunications loans program                                                                         
       account................................           124,546,000            73,948,000            65,895,000
(Loan authorization)..........................       (1,405,000,000)       (1,620,000,000)       (1,445,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1997, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                  rural telephone bank program account

                          estimated loan level

1996 loan level.........................................  ($175,000,000)
1997 budget estimate....................................   (175,000,000)
Provided in the bill....................................   (175,000,000)
Comparison:
    1996 loan level.....................................................
    1997 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, 1995, 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 direct loans the Committee 
provides a limitation of $175,000,000, the same level as 
provided in fiscal year 1996 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Administration has announced its intention to submit to 
Congress in calendar year 1996 legislation to facilitate the 
privatization of the Rural Telephone Bank at the end of 1998. 
The Committee is concerned that the study and report on 
privatization required in last year's bill have not yet been 
completed and, therefore, the full costs and impact of 
privatization are not yet known. Therefore bill language 
directs that no more than five percent of Class A stock of the 
Rural Telephone Bank be retired in fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee has also included language in the bill to 
preclude the maintenance of an equity fund subaccount within 
the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank. The 
Committee believes the subaccount is unnecessary to protect the 
equity interests of Class B and C stockholders of the bank and 
contrary to the prohibition contained in Sec. 406(G) of the 
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

       estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels

                                                                        
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1996 appropriation................         $5,023,000         $3,541,000
1997 budget estimate..............          2,328,000          3,500,000
Provided in the bill..............          2,328,000          3,500,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1996 appropriation............         -2,695,000            -41,000
    1997 budget estimate..........  .................  .................
                                                                        


    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 1996, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

               distance learning and medical link program

1996 appropriation......................................      $7,500,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      20,261,000
Provided in the bill....................................       7,500,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................     -12,761,000

    The distance learning and medical link program was 
established by the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990 (104 
STAT. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This program is 
authorized in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990 to provide incentives to improve the quality of 
phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students.

                          committee provisions

    For the Distance Learning and Medical Link Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $7,500,000, the same as 
the amount available in fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$12,761,000 below the budget request.
    The Department has proposed legislation which would permit 
distance learning and medical link loans in addition to grants. 
The Committee believes this would provide additional management 
flexibility and enable scarce resources to be better utilized 
by offering loans to entities which are more able to repay and 
thereby saving grants for the most needy projects.
    The present grant program is limited to the purchase and 
installation of hardware. A loan program will assist borrowers 
in making telecommunications and data transmission linkages 
available as well as purchases and installation of hardware. A 
portion of the loan program will be available at five percent 
interest to assist the lowest income communities but the 
majority of the funds will be available at Treasury rates. 
Loans will be available to those entities currently eligible 
for grants.
    The Committee has provided bill language which will extend 
the authority of the Department to grant loans under this 
program.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects requesting assistance under the 
Distance Learning Medical Link Program: Middle Tennessee State 
University National Agriculture Library satellite uplink; the 
Florida State University project to improve information access 
for rural public schools and libraries; the University of 
Arkansas compressed video network and information integration 
program; the University of Illinois/Lincoln Land Community 
College Rural Education and Technology Center; and the Midwest 
Center for Rural Health (Indiana) telemedicine project for 
rural health care providers, the Southern Kentucky Rural 
Development Center rural technology facility in Somerset, 
Kentucky in coordination with Kentucky Educational television 
and the Texas Telecare Consortium statewide telemedicine 
network emphasizing specialty care in pediatrics and high risk 
adult care.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.

                   rural utilities assistance program

1996 appropriation......................................\1\ $487,868,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     661,560,000
Provided in the bill....................................     496,868,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      +9,000,000
    1997 budget estimate................................    -164,692,000

\1\ Includes 1996 supplementals of $6,000,000 for water and waste 
disposal loans and grants.

    In 1996, the Congress appropriated funds under the rural 
utilities assistance program to support water and waste 
disposal loans and grants and solid waste management grants and 
the associated administrative expenses. This program, allows 
for greater flexibility to tailor the assistance to the 
applicant's needs.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 309A, and 310B 
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
1921 et seq., as amended).
    The program makes loans for water and waste disposal 
development costs. Development loans are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations generally designated 
as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for 
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and 
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or 
disposal of waste in rural areas.
    The program makes grants for water and waste disposal 
development costs. Development grants are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations generally designated 
as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for 
development, storage, treatment, purification, and distribution 
of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or disposal of 
waste in rural areas.Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of 
the development cost of the projects and can supplement other 
funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay development 
costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310(b)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 
as amended. Grants are made to public bodies and private 
nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to 
local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or 
eliminating pollution of water resources and for improving the 
planning of management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                          committee provisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Budget         Committee   
                                                                Program level      authority        provisions  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOANS:                                                                                                          
    Water and waste disposal:                                                                                   
        Direct...............................................          800,000           68,560  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loans.......................................          800,000           68,560  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
GRANTS:                                                                                                         
    Water and waste disposal.................................          590,000          590,000  ...............
    Solid waste management...................................            3,000            3,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Grants..........................................          593,000          593,000  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, RUAP............................................        1,393,000          661,560          523,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          committee provisions

    For the Rural Utilities Assistance Program (RUAP) the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $496,868,000, an 
increase of $9,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 1996 and a decrease of $164,692,000 below the budget 
request. The original appropriation for the RUAP in fiscal year 
1996 was $487,868,000 to which the Administration added 
$36,000,000 from other sources for a total fiscal year 1996 
level of $523,868,000.
    The bill provides earmarks of $5,000,000 for the circuit 
rider program, $18,700,000 for water and waste disposal systems 
for Colonias along the United States-Mexico border, $18,700,000 
in direct loans, loan guarantees and grants for empowerment 
zones and enterprise communities and a continuation of 
technical assistance at the same level of fiscal year 1996 for 
water, solid waste and transportation projects.

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                                              Transfer from                     
                                                           Appropriation      loan accounts     Total, RUS, S&E; 
                                                                                                                
1996 level.............................................        $18,449,000      ($46,464,000)      ($64,913,000)
1997 budget estimate...................................         33,873,000       (36,570,000)       (70,443,000)
Provided in the bill...................................         33,195,000       (33,482,000)       (66,677,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 level.........................................        +14,746,000      (-12,982,000)       (+1,764,000)
    1997 budget estimate...............................           -678,000       (-3,088,000)       (-3,766,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          committee provisions

    For salaries and expenses of the Rural Utilities Service 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $33,195,000 an 
increase of $14,746,000 above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1996 and a decrease of $678,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee expects the Department to give consideration 
to the following projects requesting funds from the rural 
utilities assistance program: water systems improvements in the 
Village of Angel Fire, New Mexico; a water and waste disposal 
project operated by the Mojave Water Agency in California; a 
regional stormwater treatment facility on Sweetwater Branch 
(Florida); and the South Ocean View Sanitary Sewer District 
project, Cedar Neck Expansion of the Bethany Beach Sanitary 
Sewer District and the Ellendale Sanitary Sewer District 
project (Delaware) the Willits (California) wastewater 
treatment project and the Weott (California) community services 
district sewer grant.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established 
review procedures.
                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

1996 appropriation......................................        $440,000
1997 budget estimate....................................         554,000
Provided in the bill....................................         454,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................         +14,000
    1997 budget estimate................................        -100,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, 
and Consumer Services the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $454,000, an increase of $14,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $100,000 below the 
budget request.

                       Food and Consumer Service

    The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) represents an 
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in 
this country. Food 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, 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 food 
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs 
of its low-income households.
    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 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).
    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 commodities and grant funds to state 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities for needy individuals. In addition, 
commodities are also provided to soup kitchens and food banks.
    Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups.--Nutritious 
agricultural commodities are provided to low-income persons 
living on or near Indian reservations who choose not to 
participate in the food stamp program; and to residents of the 
Pacific Territory of Palau and Federated States of Micronesia 
and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to 
distributing agencies to assist them in meeting administrative 
expenses incurred. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities 
are provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
    Food Program Administration.--This account represents all 
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and 
Consumer Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion. As of September 30, 1995, there were 1,797 full-time 
permanent and 147 part-time and temporary employees in the 
agency. There were 643 in the Washington headquarters and 1,301 
in the field, which includes 870 in seven regional offices and 
the balance in six food stamp compliance offices; one computer 
support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; five administrative 
review offices; and 74 field offices. The Center oversees 
improvements in and revisions to the food 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Transfer from section                          
                                         Direct appropriation              32              Total program level  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 appropriation...................           $2,348,166,000         ($5,597,858,000)         ($7,946,024,000)
1997 budget estimate.................            3,255,215,000          (5,413,453,000)          (8,668,668,000)
Provided in the bill.................            3,218,844,000          (5,433,753,000)          (8,652,597,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation...............             +870,678,000           (-164,105,000)           (+706,573,000)
    1997 budget estimate.............              -36,371,000            (+20,300,000)            (-16,071,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Working through state agencies, the Food and Consumer 
Service (FCS) 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; 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. 
FCS 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 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, contained a number of child nutrition 
provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorized and 
expanded SFSP to private, nonprofit organizations under certain 
conditions.
    School Breakfast Program (SBP).--Provided start-up grants 
for programs serving low-income children.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Provided funds 
for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless 
children and family day care homes in low-income areas.
    National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Mandated a 
unified system for compliance and accountability which would 
integrate Federal and state efforts and provide for increased 
Federal monitoring of SFSP operations. (2) Authorized the Food 
Service Management Institute to improve school food service 
operations.
    Nutrition Education and Training (NET).--Required 
demonstration projects and studies to examine a number of 
program issues and increased the authorization level.
    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 $8,652,597,000, an increase of $706,573,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$16,071,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $3,218,844,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$5,433,753,000 is by transfer from section 32.
    The total includes $10,300,000 for the school meals 
initiative to provide the budget request for food service 
training grants to states, in-school and community education 
materials, and a cooperative agreement for food service with 
the Food Service Management Institute. The Committee directs 
the Under Secretary to coordinate all activities related to the 
school meals initiative with the nutrition education and 
training program to better make use of limited resources.
    The total does not include funding for nutrition studies 
and surveys. The agency should reallocate staff time from 
starting new studies and evaluations to working directly with 
states to reduce error rates in the food stamp program. The 
Committee believes that reducing the amount of taxpayer dollars 
being spent for erroneous benefits is a higher priority than 
starting new studies. The 12 ongoing child nutrition studies 
will continue to completion.
    The Committee provides for the child nutrition programs at 
the following annual rates:
                                                                  Amount
Child Nutrition Programs:
    School lunch program................................  $4,904,852,000
    School breakfast program............................   1,264,949,000
    Child and adult care food program...................   1,739,767,000
    Summer food service program.........................     288,920,000
    Special milk program................................      18,074,000
    State administrative expenses.......................     108,874,000
    Commodity procurement and computer support..........     312,830,000
    School meals initiative.............................      10,300,000
    Coordinated review effort...........................       4,031,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................  $8,652,597,000

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

1996 appropriation.....................................\1\$3,729,807,000
1997 budget estimate....................................   3,880,000,000
Provided in the bill                                       3,729,807,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................    -150,193,000

\1\ Does not reflect an estimated $36 million to be transferred to the 
rural utilities assistance program from FY 1995 carryover funds.

    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 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989, 
Public Law 101-147, reauthorized and added a provision to the 
program as follows:
    Cost Containment Initiatives to Expand Participation.--(1) 
Required state agencies with a retail food delivery system to 
use a competitive bidding system or a system with equal savings 
for the procurement of infant formula. Savings are to be used 
to expand program participation. (2) Permitted states with an 
approved cost containment system to use first quarter funds to 
cover obligations incurred during the fourth quarter of the 
preceding fiscal year.
    The WIC farmers' market nutrition program (FMNP) is also 
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to 
accomplish two major goals: 1) to improve the diets of WIC 
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. Funds for the WIC 
program are provided by direct appropriation.

                          committee provisions

    For the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $3,729,807,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $150,193,000 
below the budget request. Language is included allowing up to 
$6,750,000 for the farmers' market nutrition program, the same 
as the amount available in fiscal year 1996.
    The WIC program has been and continues to be a high 
priority of the Committee, Congress, and the Administration. In 
its commitment to the program's success, Congress has provided 
WIC with significant increases for program growth at a time of 
declining budgets and fiscal austerity. In the last five years, 
as the appropriations increased so did the amount that went 
unspent each year and was carried over into the next fiscal 
year. There have been some concerns, that because of the proven 
success of the program in reducing infant mortality rates and 
future Medicaid costs, we have asked the program to grow faster 
than it was capable of growing. This is evidenced by the fact 
the total amount of carryover has increased from a level of 
$54,718,077 in fiscal year 1990 to an estimated level of 
$245,000,000 in fiscal year 1996. As further evidence, the 
program expected to reach a year-end participation level of 7.3 
million at the end of fiscal year 1995, when in actuality it 
only reached 7.0 million.
    The appropriated amount of $3,729,807,000, together with 
the anticipated carryover of $245,000,000, allows for program 
growth and will support an average participation level of 7.5 
million and a year-end participation level of 7.6 million or 
full funding of the program. If uncontrollable circumstances 
arise during the fiscal year to cause participants to be 
removed from the program, the Committee will consider 
supplemental action. To assist the states in attaining full 
participation in an efficient and effective manner, the 
Committee directs the Department to work with state agencies to 
develop earlier reporting methods which would result in more 
frequent analysis and redistribution of available resources. 
Also, the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 
requires that up to $10,000,000 of WIC funds be used for 
development of infrastructure, special state projects, and 
special breastfeeding promotion and support projects. The 
Committee believes that development of infrastructure should be 
the highest priority when distributing these funds to ensure 
that state agencies have the capacity to reach full funding 
participation levels.
    The Committee includes language that permits the Secretary 
to transfer any carryover funds in excess of $100,000,000 that 
cannot be spent in fiscal year 1997 to other programs in the 
Department, excluding the Forest Service, with prior 
notification to the Committees on Appropriation.
    Language is included prohibiting the use of funds to begin 
more than two new studies and evaluations. There are 13 ongoing 
WIC studies which will continue to completion. The Department 
is planning to start five new studies. This language will allow 
the agency to begin two of the five. The budget request for 
studies and evaluations in fiscal year 1997 is $3,495,000. The 
Committee expects the amount that is not spent on the two new 
studies will be spent on contracting with the Expanded Food 
Nutrition and Education Program to provide additional nutrition 
education programs to WIC recipients.
    The Committee understands that WIC legislation establishes 
very broad parameters for states to use in establishing income 
eligibility and nutritional risk criteria. The Committee also 
understands that the Department has issued WIC regulations 
which require states to submit and receive USDA approval of 
their criteria on an annual basis. While this is the case, 
there are some concerns that effective measures are not in 
place to ensure that only individuals who meet both income 
eligibility and nutritional risk criteria are accepted into the 
program. The 1994 eligibility and coverage estimates show that 
101 percent of eligible postpartum and breastfeeding women and 
111 percent of eligible infants are being served. The Committee 
expects the Department to work with state agencies to develop 
more uniform eligibility criteria and to develop a plan for all 
state agencies to follow to ensure that only those truly 
eligibile to participate in the program are actually enrolled.
    The Committee is concerned that the recent departure of 
Wyeth from the domestic infant formula market could result in 
reduced cost containment savings and cause reductions in WIC 
caseload and create budgetary pressures. The Committee directs 
the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking to amend existing 
regulations which will require new infant formula contracts to 
be awarded on the basis of the lowest net cost unless a state 
agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
there is less than five percent variance in the retail prices 
in the state for different brands of infant formula. If a state 
agency establishes that there is minimal variance in prices, it 
may use the highest rebate per unit to select the bidder 
offering the greatest rebate savings. The Committee will 
monitor this situation closely and expects the Department to 
keep it informed of any changes that occur to cost containment 
savings. The Committee also directs the Department to obtain 
available survey data on infant formula rebate prices and share 
this data with states requesting it unless the cost of 
obtaining such data makes this infeasible.

                           food stamp program

1996 appropriation...................................... $27,597,828,000
1997 budget estimate....................................  29,988,755,000
Provided in the bill                                      27,615,029,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     +17,201,000
    1997 budget estimate................................  -2,373,726,000

    The food stamp program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can 
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance.
    Participating households receive free food stamps in 
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the 
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility 
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps 
through suitable outlets. The Food and Consumer 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. As the major alternative to 
the paper food stamp system, Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) 
is operating statewide in Maryland, in parts of Pennsylvania, 
Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, New Jersey, Texas, and Iowa, and 
is planned in other states.

                          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.

                          other program costs

    Other program costs, which are borne entirely by the 
Federal government, include printing and transporting coupons 
to authorized state agencies and processing and destruction of 
redeemed coupons by Federal banks.
    The total cost of this program has greatly increased over 
past years. The following table indicates total program costs 
by fiscal year from 1962 to the present:

                       food stamp appropriations

                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                                        Budget authority
Fiscal year:
    1962................................................      \1\ 48,900
    1963................................................      \1\ 50,000
    1964................................................      \1\ 45,000
    1965................................................      \2\ 60,000
    1966................................................     \3\ 100,000
    1967................................................     \4\ 139,525
    1968................................................     \5\ 185,000
    1969................................................         280,000
    1970................................................         610,000
    1971................................................       1,679,000
    1972................................................       2,289,214
    1973................................................       2,500,000
    1974................................................       3,000,000
    1975................................................       4,874,600
    1976................................................       5,203,000
    1977................................................       5,514,000
    1978................................................       5,627,000
    1979................................................       6,679,200
    1980................................................       9,191,000
    1981................................................      11,480,000
    1982................................................      11,300,000
    1983................................................      13,005,141
    1984................................................      11,739,005
    1985................................................      11,768,856
    1986................................................      11,817,653
    1987................................................  \6\ 12,684,665
    1988................................................  \7\ 13,557,757
    1989................................................  \8\ 13,598,955
    1990................................................  \9\ 15,707,096
    1991................................................ \10\ 20,550,901
    1992................................................ \11\ 23,362,975
    1993................................................ \12\ 28,115,357
    1994................................................ \13\ 28,136,655
    1995................................................ \14\ 28,830,710
    1996................................................ \15\ 27,597,828

\1\ Pilot program with sec. 32 funding.
\2\ $35,000,000 of sec. 32 funds, $25,000,000 by direct appropriation.
\3\ Includes $2,000,000 reappropriation.
\4\ Includes $29,549,000 reappropriation.
\5\ Includes $23,200,000 reappropriation.
\6\ Includes $852,750,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\7\ Includes $879,250,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\8\ Includes $908,250,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\9\ Includes $936,750,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\10\ Includes $974,220,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and 
$1,500,000,000 in supplemental appropriations available until September 
30, 1992.
\11\ Includes $1,013,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\12\ Includes $1,051,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\13\ Includes $1,091,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\14\ Includes $1,143,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
\15\ Includes $1,143,000,000 nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.

    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 food 
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 an 
appropriation of $27,615,029,000, an increase of $17,201,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease 
of $2,373,726,000 below the budget request. The total amount 
includes $100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 
1997. The total amount does not include funding for studies and 
evaluations. The agency is directed to reallocate staff time 
from starting new studies and evaluations to working directly 
with states to reduce food stamp error rates. The Committee 
believes that reducing the amount of taxpayer dollars being 
spent on erroneous benefits is a higher priority than starting 
new studies. The 37 ongoing food stamp studies will continue to 
completion.
    For the Puerto Rico block grant for nutrition assistance 
the Committee includes $1,174,000,000, an increase of 
$31,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1996 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The amount of food stamp benefits a person is eligible to 
receive each month is calculated annually based on 103 percent 
of the thrifty food plan and a number of allowable deductions. 
The thrifty food plan is what USDA determines as a market 
basket of foods to provide a nutritious low-cost diet. The 
eligible deductions include a standard deduction, an earned 
income deduction, deductions for dependent care and medical 
expenses, and several shelter cost deductions. The Committee 
has included language which provides that, in fiscal year 1997, 
food stamp benefits are to be calculated using the standard 
deduction level in effect for fiscal year 1995. The Committee 
notes that, based on Departmental information, the average 
monthly benefit per person will increase from a level of $74.08 
in fiscal year 1996 to $77.30 in fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee commends the agency for expanding the number 
of preauthorization visits that are being made to stores 
applying to participate in the program. It is encouraging that, 
through these visits, the agency is preventing stores from 
participating in the program that may have been approved in the 
past. The Committee urges the Department to require 
preauthorization visits for all high risk stores.
    The Committee is pleased that the Electronic Benefit 
Transfer (EBT) system is moving forward. This system is key to 
ensuring that retailers are not redeeming food stamps in 
violation of the Food Stamp Act. Full implementation of the 
system would help prevent retail fraud and abuse in the program 
because it creates a paper trail for investigators to follow. 
The Committee urges the agency to expedite implementation of a 
nationwide EBT system.
    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
provided funding for a program of assistance for community food 
projects. These projects are designed to meet the food needs of 
low-income people; increase the self-reliance of communities in 
providing for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive 
responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues. The 
Committee urges the Department to use available funds to 
provide the means to move surplus prepared food from 
restaurants, hotels, and other such establishments to non-
profit agencies that have an established prepared food program 
that provides needed nutrition to their recipients. This will 
save countless dollars, prevent waste of available food, and 
provide quality meals for the needy.

                      Commodity Assistance Program

1996 appropriation......................................\1\ $166,000,000
1997 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 172,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     166,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................      -6,000,000

\1\ Includes funding for soup kitchens, the commodity supplemental food 
program, and 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.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).--Title II of 
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and 
appropriated funds for costs of intrastate storage and 
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. Subsequent 
authorizations have continued the program at the $50,000,000 
level. In fiscal year 1996, $46,281,183 was provided for the 
purchase and distribution of commodities as authorized by 
section 104 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988.
    Funds are administered by the Food and Consumer Service 
through grants to state agencies which operate commodity 
distribution programs. Allocation of the funds to states is 
based on a formula which considers the states' unemployment 
rates and the number of persons with incomes below the poverty 
level.
    In fiscal year 1995, $29.2 million worth of surplus 
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. 
Precise levels will depend upon the availability of surplus 
commodities and requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal 
year 1996, $31.8 million will be used to help state and local 
authorities with the storage and distribution costs of 
providing surplus commodities to needy individuals.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized 
administrative funding through 2002 for the purchase of TEFAP 
commodities.
    Soup Kitchens.--In fiscal year 1996, $33,718,817 was 
provided for the purchase and distribution of commodities to 
soup kitchens and food banks as authorized by section 110 of 
the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988.
    The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized through 
fiscal year 2002 commodities for soup kitchens. The law further 
authorized the distribution of soup kitchen commodities to food 
pantries.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the commodity supplemental food program, soup kitchens, 
and the emergency food assistance program the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $166,000,000, the same as the 
amount available in fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of 
$6,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee does not 
expect the Department to eliminate funding for commodity 
purchases in the emergency food assistance program.

              Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups

1996 appropriation......................................    $215,000,000
1997 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 215,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................     205,000,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     -10,000,000
    1997 budget estimate................................     -10,000,000

\1\ The FY 1997 budget proposes to transfer $150,000,000 for the elderly 
feeding program to DHHS.

    The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 612c (note)), provides for a directly funded 
food distribution program for low-income persons residing on or 
near Indian reservations who choose not to participate in the 
food stamp program and to needy individuals in the Pacific 
Island Territories. This program attempts to alleviate hunger 
and malnutrition in low-income households by providing 
nutritious agricultural commodities to eligible persons. This 
program also funds commodity support for elderly feeding 
programs under titles III and IV of the Older Americans Act of 
1965. Donated foods are used in meals served in senior citizens 
centers or similar settings. States may elect cash-in-lieu of 
commodities.
    The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
(P.L. 104-127) reauthorized through fiscal year 2002 the food 
distribution program on Indian reservations.

                          Committee Provisions

    For the food donations programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $205,000,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $10,000,000 below 
the budget request. Included in the amount is $140,000,000 for 
the nutrition program for the elderly and $65,000,000 for the 
food distribution program on Indian reservations.
    The Committee does not include language proposed by the 
Administration to directly transfer the funding for the elderly 
feeding program to the Department of Health and Human Services. 
The Committee will take this proposal into consideration when 
it considers reorganizing Committee jurisdictions next year.

               Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

1996 appropriation......................................           (\1\)
1997 budget estimate....................................      $4,470,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................      -4,470,000

\1\ On a comparable basis, the 1996 appropriation would be $2,499,000.

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

                          Committee Provisions

    The Committee does not provide a separate appropriation for 
the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The functions of 
this office are retained under food program administration.

                      food program administration

1996 appropriation......................................\1\ $107,769,000
1997 budget estimate....................................     110,982,000
Provided in the bill....................................     104,487,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -3,282,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -6,495,000

\1\ Does not reflect transfer of $130,000 to Departmental Administration 
for the Office of Civil Rights.

    The food program administration appropriation provides for 
all of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Consumer 
Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; special 
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
(WIC); the commodity assistance program, including the 
commodity supplemental food program, the emergency food 
assistance program, and soup kitchens and food banks; food 
stamp program, and food donations programs for selected groups.
    The major objective of food program administration is to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the food assistance 
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the 
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to state agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the states and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program 
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support 
functions.

                          Committee Provisions

    For food program administration the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $104,487,000, a decrease of $3,282,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $6,495,000 below 
the budget request.
    The record for the fiscal year 1997 appropriations hearing 
on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, indicates there are currently 62 
ongoing studies and evaluations within the food stamp, child 
nutrition, WIC programs costing almost $46 million. In addition 
to these 62 ongoing studies, the agency is planning to start 36 
new studies in fiscal year 1997. The Committee has included 
language under the food stamp and child nutrition accounts 
prohibiting fiscal year 1997 funds from being used to start any 
new studies and evaluations and only allowing two new WIC 
studies. The Committee understands the need for program 
evaluations, but 98 studies and evaluations is excessive.
    The Committee has been extremely concerned with the amount 
of food stamp benefits that are being distributed erroneously. 
The Committee has expressed its concerns at every level within 
the Department and the response is always the same, ``We are 
just as concerned as you are and we're working very hard to 
address the problem.'' Every year the budget request for the 
food stamp program includes an increased level for erroneous 
benefits. Congress is working very hard to try to balance the 
budget. This country can no longer afford to annually pay out 
almost $2.0 billion in food stamp benefits to states and 
recipients because of case worker and recipient errors. Instead 
of starting new studies and evaluations, many of which are 
overlapping in nature, the Committee directs that the agency 
devote its staff time to working directly with states to reduce 
error rates in the food stamp program and, thereby, also reduce 
the amount in erroneous benefits. The Committee expects the 
budget request for fiscal year 1998 to reflect this priority 
work.
            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

                                                                                                                
                                                                                 Transfer from                  
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS   
                                                                                                                
1996 appropriation............................................    $115,802,000    ($8,973,000)    ($124,775,000)
1997 budget estimate..........................................     132,875,000     (4,266,000)     (137,141,000)
Provided in the bill..........................................     124,208,000     (3,797,000)     (128,005,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation........................................      +8,406,000    (-5,176,000)      (+3,230,000)
    1997 budget estimate......................................      -8,667,000      (-469,000)      (-9,136,000)
                                                                                                                

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $124,208,000 and transfers of $3,797,000 
for a total program level of $128,005,000, an increase of 
$3,230,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
a decrease of $9,136,000 below the budget request.
    In providing the increase above the fiscal year 1996 level, 
the Committee recommends funding the requested pay increases 
for FAS, International Cooperation and Development, the General 
Sales Manager and expansion in the following locations: 
Beijing, Mexico (two offices), Miami, Guanzhou, Shanghai, Sao 
Paulo and Jakarta.
    The Committee notes that the Department is requesting 
legislation to require that ``funds provided for foreign market 
development to trade associations, cooperatives and small 
businesses shall be allocated only after a competitive bidding 
process . . .'' The Committee concurs with the Department that 
these funds should be awarded competitively and instructs the 
Department to ensure that the larger, well-funded organizations 
do not have an unfair advantage over smaller organizations in 
the application process. The Department could, for example, 
make personnel available, if requested by the smaller 
organizations, to help them draft and complete necessary 
paperwork for the applications.
    The Committee believes the Department should consider 
requiring increased cost sharing from participants in the 
foreign market development/cooperator program and from 
participants in trade shows to allow more appropriated funds to 
be used for critical Foreign Agricultural Service activities.
    The Department should also ensure that adequate resources 
are directed to the eradication of unfair sanitary and 
phytosanitary barriers to American exports. With bilateral and 
multilateral trade agreements, reducing traditional barriers 
such as quotas and tariffs, foreign governments are likely to 
use unscientific and unreasonable import regulations as a way 
to protect their domestic markets. In particular, the Committee 
is concerned about barriers to American citrus exports to 
Mexico and urges the Department to make eradication of these 
barriers a high priority.
    The Committee encourages the Department to consider using 
export enhancement program funds to assist the export of 
cottonseed oil and sunflower seed oil where appropriate.
    The Committee directs that no funds from this Act be used 
to provide assistance to or to pay the salaries of personnel 
who carry out a market promotion program or a market access 
program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5623) that provides assistance to the U.S. 
Mink Export Development Council or to any mink industry trade 
association.
    Under the general provisions the Committee is putting a 
limitation of no more than $100,000,000 on the Export 
Enhancement Program for fiscal year 1997.

                             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 1997 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes 
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies 
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local 
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation 
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. 
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period 
of up to 5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on 
credit terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries 
and countries that are emerging democracies that have a 
commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in 
their agricultural economies.
    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                          committee provisions

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                                                          FY 1996 enacted    FY 1997 request       provisions   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:                                                                                 
    Title I--Credit sales:                                                                                      
        Program level..................................     ($316,342,000)     ($232,849,000)     ($230,305,000)
        Direct loans...................................      (291,342,000)      (218,944,000)      (216,400,000)
        Ocean freight differential.....................        25,000,000         13,905,000         13,905,000 
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:                                                               
        Program level..................................      (821,100,000)      (837,000,000)      (837,000,000)
        Appropriation..................................       821,100,000        837,000,000        837,000,000 
    Title III--Commodity grants:                                                                                
        Program level..................................       (50,000,000)       (40,000,000)       (29,500,000)
        Appropriation..................................        50,000,000         40,000,000         29,500,000 
    Loan subsidies.....................................       236,162,000        179,082,000        177,000,000 
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                      
        General Sales Manager..........................         1,005,000          1,035,000          1,005,000 
        FSA............................................           745,000            783,000            745,000 
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.....................................         1,750,000          1,818,000          1,750,000 
                                                        ========================================================
          Total, Public Law 480:                                                                                
              Program level............................    (1,187,442,000)    (1,109,849,000)    (1,096,805,000)
              Appropriation............................     1,134,012,000      1,071,805,000      1,059,155,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that the United States should 
maintain a role in providing humanitarian aid to developing 
nations and to emergency situations overseas. The Committee 
regrets that Administration requests and the critical budget 
situation have resulted in continuing reductions in the PL 480 
accounts over the past several years. USDA's Economic Research 
Service projects that food aid supplies will cover less than 40 
percent of the need in 60 countries this year.
    Therefore, the Committee expects the Administration to make 
every effort to keep ocean freight expenditures and 
administrative costs as low as possible in order to maximize 
the benefit of scarce food aid resources and to use those 
resources to address the most serious humanitarian needs.

                    CCC Export Loans Program Account

                                                                        
                                     Guaranteed loan     Administrative 
                                         subsidy            expenses    
                                                                        
1996 appropriation................       $374,347,000         $3,381,000
1997 budget estimate..............    (1) 390,000,000          3,854,000
Provided in the bill..............        390,000,000          3,381,000
Comparison:                                                             
    1996 appropriation............        +15,653,000  .................
    1997 budget estimate..........  .................           -473,000
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ In 1997, the subsidy required will be financed by funding derived   
  from the 1996 subsidy reestimate.                                     


    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 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 1997 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.
      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                                                                
                                                                                    User fee                    
                                                                  Appropriation     accounts     Total, FDA, S&E;
                                                                                                                
1996 appropriation.............................................    $819,971,000   ($97,723,000)   ($917,694,000)
1997 budget estimate \1\.......................................     823,771,000   (100,931,000)    (924,702,000)
Provided in the bill...........................................     819,971,000   (100,931,000)    (920,902,000)
Comparison:                                                                                                     
    1996 appropriation.........................................  ..............    (+3,208,000)     (+3,208,000)
    1997 budget estimate.......................................      -3,800,000  ..............     (-3,800,000)
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
 \1\ The budget request proposed legislative changes that would have allowed the FDA to collect $38,740,000 in  
  currently unauthorized user fees.                                                                             

    The programs of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are 
designed to achieve a single overall objective: consumer 
protection. FDA's mission is to ensure that: (1) food is safe, 
pure, and wholesome; (2) human and animal drugs, biological 
products, and medical devices are safe and effective; and (3) 
radiological products and use procedures do not result in 
unnecessary exposure to radiation.
    To accomplish its mission, FDA: (1) sets food and product 
standards; (2) evaluates the safety and efficacy of new drugs 
and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conducts and 
sponsors research studies to detect health hazards and 
violations of laws or regulations, to improve the agency's base 
of scientific knowledge in toxicology and other disciplines, 
and to promote development of orphan products; (4) informs 
business firms and consumers about FDA-related topics; (5) 
works with state and local agencies to develop programs that 
will supplement or complement those of FDA; (6) maintains 
surveillance over foods, drugs, medical devices and electronic 
products to ensure that they are safe, effective, and honestly 
labeled; and (7) takes legal action where necessary to remove 
violative products from the marketplace and to prosecute firms 
or individuals that violate the law.
    Through its regulation of food, FDA protects and promotes 
the health of nearly every American by monitoring the food 
industry to safeguard against contamination by dangerous 
bacteria and molds and other natural and man-made toxins, and 
by regulating the safe use of veterinary drugs and feed 
additives to protect consumers against hazardous drug residues 
or by-products that may remain in meat. FDA also assures that 
consumers are not victimized by adulteration; promotes 
informative labeling to assist consumers in choosing foods; and 
examines imported foods to see that they meet the same 
standards as domestic products. FDA also provides leadership 
and assistance to the states and local authorities in 
conducting their responsibilities.

                          committee provisions

    For the Food and Drug Administration the Committee provides 
a program level of $920,902,000, an increase of $3,208,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and $3,800,000 
below the budget request. The recommendation includes only an 
increase for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of $2,805,000 
and estimated increases for the Mammography Quality Clinic Act 
of $403,000. These increases are a result of increased user fee 
collections. The Committee does not concur with the request to 
provide authorization to establish new user fees for the 
medical device program and food inspection user fees on 
imported products.
    The Committee would point out that funds appropriated must 
be used for the purpose for which appropriated, as required by 
section 1301 of title 31 of the United States Code. The 
Committee generally approves the agency's budget justification 
or it redirects the budget and accordingly expects the agency 
to spend its appropriations as directed. There is concern that 
the agency too easily transfers funds from one program to 
another without Committee notification. For fiscal year 1997, 
the Committee provides the following program accounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            FY 1996          FY 1997    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods.................................     $221,563,000     $221,563,000
Human drugs...........................      271,841,000      273,945,000
Biologics.............................      132,582,000      133,283,000
Animal drugs & feeds..................       42,185,000       42,185,000
Device and radiological products......      169,679,000      170,858,000
National Center for Toxicological                                       
 Research.............................       38,069,000       38,069,000
Program management....................       41,775,000       41,000,000
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      917,694,000      920,903,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reprogramming is the utilization of funds for purposes 
other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation 
enactment. Reprogramming is not a request for new funds but 
rather the reallocation of resources already available.
    The Committee has an interest in approving reprogrammings 
which, although they may not change either the total amount 
available in an account or any of the purposes for which the 
appropriation is legally available, represent a departure from 
budget plans presented to the Committee in the budget 
justifications.
    The Committee directs the FDA to provide written 
notification to the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations prior to the reprogramming of funds in excess 
of $1,000,000 to or from programs specified in the committee 
report, except in cases of an imminent threat to the public 
safety. In instances of an imminent threat to the public 
safety, the agency will notify the Congress subsequently.
    The Committee has redirected funds from program management 
to assist with the medical device approval process. The Food 
and Drug Administration currently is not meeting its statutory 
deadlines for approvals of some food additive petitions, drugs, 
and medical devices. The Committee expects the agency to meet 
its petition and approval requirements as set forth in the law.
    The Committee has included language that extends the 
moratorium on the regulation of saccharin.
    The Committee provides $100,000, the same amount as last 
year, for a cooperative research program related to molluscan 
shellfish and further expects the agency to continue its 
education program on the consumption of raw shellfish.
    The Committee provides the same level of funding for the 
Clinical Pharmacology Training Program as in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee recognizes breast cancer is the most common 
type of cancer among American women and that breast self-
examination is an essential step in early detection. The Sensor 
Pad has been approved by the FDA to aid breast lump detection, 
with the requirement that a prescription for use be obtained. 
This Committee is very concerned that this restriction limits 
availability of this essential tool to low-income women who 
cannot afford to see a physician in non-emergency situations. 
Recognizing that approximately 184,300 new cases will 
diagnosed, and more than 44,000 women in the U.S. will die this 
year from breast cancer, the Committee directs the FDA to 
reexamine the need for ``prescription only'' status for this 
breast lump detection tool and report its findings to the 
Congress in 60 days.
    The Committee is aware that FDA proposed in 1995 a 
regulation requiring pharmacists to dispense along with new 
prescriptions a patient leaflet describing warnings, side 
effects, and other information about the drug--even though the 
private sector has made great progress in recent years in 
providing patients with information about their drugs. The 
Committee believes that, in general, the private sector should 
be given time to provide this information. Although the agency 
may finalize its regulation, the Committee has provided that no 
funds may be used to implement that regulation. However, the 
Committee's language does provide that FDA may implement a 
final rule now for a very limited number of products, i.e., any 
specific drug that poses a serious and significant public 
health risk. The committee is assured by FDA that patient 
leaflets required under that provision will be limited to only 
a very small number of drugs that cannot be used appropriately 
without specific written information provided directly to the 
patient.

                        buildings and facilities

1996 appropriation......................................     $12,150,000
1997 budget estimate....................................       8,350,000
Provided in the bill....................................      21,350,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      -3,800,000
    1997 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 $21,350,000, an increase 
of $9,200,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 
and $13,000,000 above the budget request. The increase above 
the budget request is to continue the modernization of the 
National Center for Toxicological Research.

                         rental payments (fda)

1996 appropriation......................................     $46,294,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      46,294,000
Provided in the bill....................................      46,294,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    Annual appropriations are made to agencies of the Federal 
government so that they can pay the General Services 
Administration fees for rental of space and for related 
services.

                          committee provisions

    For rental payments of the Food and Drug Administration the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $46,294,000, the same as 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and same as the 
budget request.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation

1996 appropriation......................................     $15,453,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      10,290,000
Provided in the bill....................................      10,290,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................................
    1997 budget estimate................................      -5,163,000

    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-233) 
authorized such sums as necessary to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Treasury for Payment to the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation. These payments reimburse the 
Corporation for interest expenses on U.S. guaranteed debt 
issued by the Corporation. Assistance Corporation debt proceeds 
will be used to provide assistance to financially troubled 
System institutions. Beginning in fiscal year 1989, Treasury 
annually reimburses 100 percent of the Assistance Corporation 
interest expense incurred until January 1994. Between January 
1994 and the ensuing five years, Treasury will reimburse up to 
50 percent of the Assistance Corporation's interest expense, 
with System banks paying the balance. Thereafter all Assistance 
Corporation interest expense will be paid by System banks.

                          committee provisions

    For interest expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System 
Financial Assistance Corporation the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $10,290,000, a decrease of $5,163,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and the same amount 
as the budget request.

                          Independent Agencies

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1996 appropriation......................................     $53,601,000
1997 budget estimate....................................      56,601,000
Provided in the bill....................................      55,101,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................      +1,500,000
    1997 budget estimate................................      -1,500,000

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

                          committee provisions

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $55,101,000, an increase of 
$1,500,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1996 and 
a decrease of $1,500,000 below the budget request.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

1996 appropriation......................................................
1997 budget estimate....................................     $37,478,000
Provided in the bill....................................      37,478,000
Comparison:
    1996 appropriation..................................     +37,478,000
    1997 budget estimate................................................

    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 administrative expenses of the Farm 
Credit Administration the Committee provides $37,478,000, the 
same amount as the budget request.
                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sections 701 through 717 of the General Provisions 
contained in the accompanying bill for fiscal year 1997 are 
fundamentally the same as those included in last year's 
appropriations bill.
    Section 718. Provides that not more than 5 percent of Class 
A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be retired in fiscal 
year 1997. The provision also prohibits the maintenance of any 
account or subaccount which has not been specifically 
authorized by law.
    Section 719. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to provide food stamp benefits to households whose 
benefits are calculated using a standard deduction greater than 
the standard deduction in effect for fiscal year 1995.
    Section 720. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to provide market promotion/market access program 
assistance to the U.S. Mink Export Development Council or any 
mink industry trade association.
    Section 721. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to enroll more than 100,000 acres in the wetlands 
reserve program in fiscal year 1997.
    Section 722. Provides that of the funds made available by 
this Act, not more than $1,000,000 shall be used to cover 
expenses of activities related to advisory committees, panels, 
commissions, and task forces except for panels used to comply 
with negotiated rule makings.
    Section 723. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to carry out an export enhancement program in 
excess of $100,000,000.
    Section 724. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to carry out a farmland protection program in 
excess of $2,000,000.
    Section 725. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to carry out a wildlife habitat incentives 
program.
    Section 726. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to carry out a conservation farm option program 
in excess of $2,000,000.
    Section 727. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to transmit questions or responses to questions 
related to information requested for the appropriations hearing 
process to any non-Department of Agriculture employee.
    Section 728. Provides bill language on planting 
requirements states that no production flexibility payments 
should go to farmers who do not engage in agricultural 
production. This provision is not intended to apply to 
individuals who are prevented from planting due to weather 
conditions. Agricultural production for the purposes of this 
provision includes crop and livestock production.
    Section 729. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
shall be used to extend any existing or expiring contract in 
the conservation reserve program.
    Section 730. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to maintain the price of raw cane sugar at more 
than 117.5 percent of the statutory loan rate.
    Section 731. Provides that none of the funds in this Act 
may be used to establish the safe meat and poultry inspection 
panel.
    Section 732. Provides for the patent extension of 
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
    Section 733. Provides bill language that allows for costs 
of incidental expense for volunteers serving under the 
authority of 7 U.S.C. 2272 to be paid out of appropriations.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4), rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee offers the following statement 
in support of its opinion that this bill, as proposed, will 
have no overall inflationary impact over the broad spectrum of 
the nation's economy.
    New obligational authority has been reduced below the 1996 
budget request. Restoration and other increases made by the 
Committee for certain essential purposes, as discussed earlier 
in this report, have been more than offset by reductions 
elsewhere.
    The restoration of funds for rural development programs 
should result in a substantial benefit in our economy by 
providing additional employment in the construction industry--a 
noninflationary benefit.
    The restoration and addition of funds for the various 
research, extension, and conservation activities of USDA should 
help to protect our nation's land and water resources and 
encourage food and fiber production to meet domestic and 
overseas needs, both of which are anti-inflationary in effect.

                    Transfer of Unexpended Balances

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the 
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are 
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
by clause 1(b)(2) of rule X.
    1. Office of the Secretary.--The bill allows the transfer 
of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to the Office of the Secretary.
    2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental 
payments account based on changing space requirements.
    3. Hazardous 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 allows 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 
Economic 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. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    15. 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.
    16. Public Law 480.--The bill allows for the transfer of up 
to 15 percent of the funds between titles I, II, and III.
    17. 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.
    18. Rental Payments (FDA).--The bill allows transfer to or 
from the rental payments account based on changing space 
requirements.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect or 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. Language is also 
included to limit personnel detailed to any Under Secretary or 
Assistant Secretary office to not more than 30 days.
    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. National Agricultural Statistics Service.--Language is 
included to provide the Secretary the authority to conduct the 
Census of Agriculture.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    11. 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.
    12. Section 32 Funds.--The bill includes authority, which 
has been in the bill since fiscal year 1976, to transfer 
section 32 funds to the child nutrition programs. This is 
required to increase funds available for cash payments to 
states for these programs and to purchase and distribute 
agricultural commodities pursuant to section 6 of the National 
School Lunch Act. Under the paragraph in the bill headed 
``Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (section 
32)'', language is included to authorize these transfers.
    13. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for 
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the 
reimbursement appropriation.
    14. Office of Risk Management.--Language is included to 
limit the amount of funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during fiscal year 1997 be funded for a five-year period.
    18. Rural Housing Assistance Program and Rural Housing 
Insurance Fund Program Account.--Language is included to 
prohibit section 515 rental housing funds from being used for 
new construction.
    19. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
Program Account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for electric loans to exceed seven percent.
    20. Distance Learning and Medical Link.--Language is 
included to provide for loans.
    21. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    22. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to limit to 
two the number of new studies and evaluations that can be 
started in fiscal year 1997.
    23. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    24. 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. Language is 
also included to allocate foreign market development funds to 
trade associations, cooperative and small businesses on a 
competitive basis.
    25. Food and Drug Administration.--Language included since 
1986 prohibits any user fee authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. 
Language is also included to extend the moratorium on saccharin 
to May 1, 2002. Language is included to prohibit the use of 
funds to implement any rule finalizing the proposed rule 
entitled, The Prescription Drug Product Labeling; Medication 
Guide Requirements, except in cases of serious and significant 
public health risk.
    26. Rental Payments (FDA).--Language included since 1985 
allows transfer of limited amounts to and from this account.
    27. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from 
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
    28. 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, carried since 1983, 
        provides that none of the funds in this Act shall be 
        available to reimburse the General Services 
        Administration for rental payment in excess of the 
        amounts specified in the Act.
          Section 711: 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 712: This provision, added in 1990, provides 
        that none of the funds in this Act may be made 
        available to pay indirect costs on competitive research 
        grants awarded by the Cooperative State Research, 
        Education, and Extension Service in excess of 14 
        percent of total direct costs, except for grants 
        available under the Small Business Innovation and 
        Development Act.
          Section 713: 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 714: This provision allows funds made 
        available in fiscal year 1997 for the Rural Development 
        Loan Fund Program Account; Rural Telephone Bank Program 
        Account; the Rural Electrification and 
        Telecommunications Loans Program Account; and the Rural 
        Economic Development Loans 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 1997 pay raises shall be 
        absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
          Section 716: This provision, added in fiscal year 
        1994, provides for compliance with the Buy American 
        Act.
          Section 717: This provision provides that the 
        Agricultural Marketing Service and the Animal and Plant 
        Health Inspection 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 1997. The provision also 
        prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount 
        which has not been specifically authorized by law.
          Section 719: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to provide food stamp benefits to 
        households whose benefits are calculated using a 
        standard deduction greater than the standard deduction 
        in effect for fiscal year 1995.
          Section 720: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to provide market promotion/market 
        access program assistance to the U.S. Mink Export 
        Development Council or any mink industry trade 
        association.
          Section 721: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to enroll more than 130,000 acres in 
        the wetlands reserve program in fiscal year 1997.
          Section 723: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to carry out an export enhancement 
        program in excess of $100,000,000.
          Section 724: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to carry out a farmland protection 
        program in excess of $2,000,000.
          Section 725: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to carry out a wildlife habitat 
        incentives program.
          Section 726: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to carry out a conservation farm 
        option program in excess of $2,000,000.
          Section 728: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to make payments pursuant to a 
        production flexibility contract if it is made known to 
        the Department that the land covered by such contract 
        is not being used for agricultural purposes.
          Section 729: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act shall be used to extend any existing or expiring 
        contract in the conservation reserve program.
          Section 730: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to maintain the price of raw cane sugar 
        at more than 117.5 percent of the statutory loan rate.
          Section 731: Provides that none of the funds in this 
        Act may be used to establish the safe meat and poultry 
        inspection panel.
          Section 732: Provides for the patent extension of 
        nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

                  Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3

    In compliance with clause 3 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 is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 Section 3 of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act (21 U.S.C. 348 note)

          * * * * * * *

                  TITLE 21, UNITED STATES CODE 348 nt.

          * * * * * * *
    During the period ending [May 1, 1997] May 1, 2002, the 
Secretary--
          (1) may not amend or revoke the interim food additive 
        regulation of the Food and Drug Administration of the 
        Department of Health and Human Services applicable to 
        saccharin and published on March 15, 1977 (section 
        180.37 of part 180, subchapter B, chapter 1, title 21, 
        Code of Federal Regulations (42 Fed. Reg. 14638)), or
          (2) may, except as provided in section 4 (enacting 
        section 343a of this title, amending sections 321 and 
        343 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as 
        notes under section 343 of this title) and the 
        amendments made by such section, not take any other 
        action under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
        (this chapter) to prohibit or restrict the sale or 
        distribution of saccharin, any food permitted by such 
        interim food additive regulation to contain saccharin, 
        or any drug or cosmetic containing saccharin, solely on 
        the basis of the carcinogenic or other toxic effect of 
        saccharin as determined by any study made available to 
        the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this 
        Act (Nov. 23, 1977) which involved human studies or 
        animal testing, or both.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations 
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:



          Section 515, Multi-Family Housing.
    The Committee notes that most of the programs listed are in 
various stages of reauthorization and it is anticipated that 
these programs will be authorized for fiscal year 1997.

                   Comparison with Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contains a statement detailing how the 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

                                                SUBCOMMITTEE DATA                                               
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  602(b) allocation             This bill       
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget               
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with budget resolution:                                                                              
    Discretionary...........................................       12,329       12,878       12,801       13,349
    Mandatory...............................................       42,300       40,813       39,883       38,968
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................       54,629       53,691       52,684      52,317 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The Section 602(b) subdivision for this bill was approved by the Committee on May 23, 1996, based on the 
  House-passed Budget Resolution discretionary funding levels. After that subdivision was approved, the         
  Committee began proceeding informally based on a tentative revision to the approved subdivision. This revision
  assumes that the conference report on the Budget Resolution will include a split between House- and Senate-   
  passed Budget Resolution discretionary funding levels. For the purpose of reporting this bill, the Committee  
  assumes that the Budget Resolution conference agreement will be passed by both bodies and that the Committee  
  will revise this bill's Section 602(b) subdivision prior to floor consideration so that this bill will conform
  to Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requirements.                                             

    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) 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:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Budget authority........................................          52,684
Outlays:
    1997................................................          45,132
    1998................................................           3,653
    1999................................................             542
    2000................................................             251
    2001 and beyond.....................................             427

    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 1997 and beyond.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) 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....................................         $16,334
Fiscal year 1997 outlays resulting therefrom............          13,782

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1997, 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 
1997, 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 1997 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 1997 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 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: June 6, 1996.
    Measure: FY 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To preclude funds to implement the 
Northeast Dairy Compact.
    Results: Rejected 18 to 29.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Bunn                            Mr. Dickey
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Forbes
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Hefner
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Livingston
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. McDade
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Myers
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Parker
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: June 6, 1997.
    Measure: FY 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
    Motion by: Mr. Durbin.
    Description of Motion: To restrict funds from use on 
Extension Service and Crop Insurance for tobacco.
    Results: Rejected 19 to 29 and 1 Present.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bunn                            Mr. Bevill
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Chapman
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hobson                          Mr. Dixon
Mr. Kolbe                           Mr. Fazio
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Forbes
Mr. McDade                          Mr. Hefner
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Istook
Mr. Packard                         Ms. Kaptur
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Porter                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Riggs                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Murtha
Mr. Wolf                            Mr. Myers
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Young                           Mr. Parker
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Sabo
                                    Mr. Skaggs
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Thorton
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker

                         Members Voting Present

                             Mr. Livingston
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall no. 3

    Date: June 6, 1996.
    Measure: FY 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for the Rural 
Utilities Assistance Program.
    Results: Rejected 17 to 29.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bunn
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. DeLay
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Forbes
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Livingston
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. McDade
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Myers
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Parker
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                            Tax Expenditures

    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 following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:




                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                                 Report
   Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
                         Related Agencies, 1997
                              Introduction
                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                                                                   Page
Office of the Secretary..........................................     3
Executive Operations.............................................     6
    Office of the Chief Economist................................     6
    National Appeals Division....................................     6
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis........................     6
Chief Financial Officer..........................................     7
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............     7
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.........     8
Advisory Committees (USDA).......................................    10
Hazardous Waste Management.......................................    10
Departmental Administration......................................    10
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations....    11
Office of Communications.........................................    12
Office of the Inspector General..................................    12
Office of the General Counsel....................................    13
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
  Economics......................................................    14
Economic Research Service........................................    14
National Agricultural Statistics Service.........................    15
Agricultural Research Service....................................    16
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    19
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....    20
    Research and Education Activities............................    21
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund..................    25
    Extension Activities.........................................    25
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    27
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
  Programs.......................................................    28
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    29
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................    33
Agricultural Marketing Service:
    Marketing Services...........................................    34
    Limitation on Administrative Expenses........................    34
    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (section 
      32)........................................................    35
    Payments to States and Possessions...........................    36
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..........    37
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    37
    Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses......    37
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety....................    38
Food Safety and Inspection Service...............................    39

                        Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
  Services.......................................................    40
Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    43
    State Mediation Grants.......................................    44
    Dairy Indemnity Program......................................    44
    Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.....    45
    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account...........    45
Office of Risk Management........................................    47

                              Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund..........................    48
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
    Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses........................    52
    Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management....    53
                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
  Environment....................................................    54
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation Operations......................................    55
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations....................    57
    Resource Conservation and Development........................    58
    Forestry Incentives Program..................................    58
    Watershed Surveys and Planning...............................    59
    National Natural Resources Conservation Service Foundation...    60
      TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development..............    61
Rural Assistance Programs........................................    61
Rural Performance Partnership Program............................    62
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account.................    63
    Estimated Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses Levels....    64
    Rental Assistance Program....................................    65
    Community Facility Loans.....................................    65
    Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants........................    66
    Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor........................    66
    Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants..........................    67
    Rural Community Fire Protection Grants.......................    67
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants............................    68
    Community Facility Grant Program.............................    68
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    69
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
    Rural Business and Industry Loans Program Account............    71
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account..................    71
    Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.............    72
    Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
      Revolving Fund.............................................    73
    Rural Business Enterprise Grants.............................    73
    Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Grants..........    74
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    75
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program 
      Account....................................................    77
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.........................    78
    Distance Learning and Medical Link Grants....................    79
    Rural Utilities Assistance Program...........................    80
    Salaries and Expenses........................................    81
                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 
  Services.......................................................    83
Food and Consumer Service:
    Child Nutrition Programs.....................................    85
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
      and Children (WIC).........................................    86
    Food Stamp Program...........................................    89
    Commodity Assistance Program.................................    92
    Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups..................    93
    Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion....................    94
    Food Program Administration..................................    94
            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager...........    96
    Public Law 480...............................................    97
    CCC Export Loans Program Account.............................    99
      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration:
    Salaries and Expenses........................................   100
    Buildings and Facilities.....................................   102
    Rental Payments..............................................   103

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm Credit System.   103

                          Independent Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................   104
Farm Credit Administration.......................................   104

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sections 701 through 733.........................................   106
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................   107
Transfer of Unexpended Balances..................................   107
Changes in the Application of Existing Law.......................   108
Appropriations Not Authorized By Law.............................   114
Comparison with Budget Resolution................................   114
Five-Year Projection of Outlays..................................   115
Tax Expenditures.................................................   119
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments..............   133
Program, Project, and Activity...................................   133
Full Committee Votes.............................................   133